Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1622 (MAD)

Chinna Manthadi (Died) v. N. Rosi Manthadi (Died)

2020-09-23

M.GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.321 of 2009 in O.S.No.631 of 2001 dated 07.03.2014 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pallipattu.) 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of the interlocutory application filed to condone the delay of 2274 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree dated 04.10.2001. 2. The deceased petitioner is the second defendant in the suit and the deceased respondent is the first plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed by the deceased respondent for declaration of title and injunction in O.S.No.9 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruttani, where the second defendant filed written statement dated 25.04.1995, wherein he had set out the decree passed in O.S.No.607 of 1990 filed by him against the first defendant and his wife, which was decreed on 21.09.1990 and the sale deed was executed by the Court in E.P.No.54 of 1991 on 11.06.1993. Pursuant to the sale executed by the Court, delivery of possession was also made by the Court on 20.10.1994. Suppressing the above fact, the suit has been filed. It was submitted that the said suit was transferred from District Munsif Court, Tiruttani to District Munsif Court, Pallipattu and renumbered as O.S.No.631 of 2001, in which, the petitioners were set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 04.10.2001. The petitioners had got knowledge of the exparte decree when the plaintiff declared that they got judgment against them on 29.12.2008. Immediately, on 30.10.2008, they filed the above application. The reason for the delay was that the Advocate who handled the case at Tiruttani namely N.S.Egambaram died. Before his death, he handed over the bundle to one Mr.Krishna Kumar, Advocate. But the said fact was not within the knowledge as the first defendant himself died. The Trial Court, without considering the decree passed in O.S.No.607 of 1990 dated 21.09.1990 and the subsequent transactions, simply passed an exparte decree without framing any issues; without discussing any issues and without assigning any reasons for arriving at the conclusion. According to the petitioners, setting the defendants exparte will not automatically entitle the plaintiff for decree. He has already approached the Court for condonation of delay and the same was allowed at the first instance. According to the petitioners, setting the defendants exparte will not automatically entitle the plaintiff for decree. He has already approached the Court for condonation of delay and the same was allowed at the first instance. But, in CRP (PD) Nos.3852 and 3853 of 2009, by order dated 18.03.2011, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. In the second round of litigation, the Trial Court has dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that each and every day’s delay should be properly explained and without showing sufficient cause, the delay cannot be condoned. The petitioners committed delay of more than seven years and therefore, without any sufficient cause and satisfactory explanation, they are not entitled to get the delay condoned. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. 5. It is an admitted fact that a suit in O.S.No.607 of 1990 was filed for re-conveyance of lands against the first defendant in the present suit and his wife. It was decreed on 21.09.1990 and the sale deed was executed by the District Munsif Court, in E.P.No.54 of 1991 on 11.06.1993. Delivery of possession was also ordered on 20.10.1994 through Court. The parties were enjoying the properties. While so, after the delivery of property, the present plaintiff in O.S.No.631 of 2001 has filed the suit and obtained exparte decree. It is also noted that in the above suit, the present petitioners have filed a written statement dated 25.04.1995. The written statement set out the details of the previous suit and the sale deed executed by the Trial Court and handing over possession through Court. While so, a perusal of the exparte decree dated 04.10.2001 shows that these points were not at all considered. The judicial notice of this Court was drawn to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.631 of 2001 on 04.10.2001, which reads as under:- “TAMIL” 6. From the perusal of the above judgment, it can be seen that the precise statement of the parties, the issues, evidence recorded, documents relied and the reasons for coming to the conclusion are found absent. In the eyes of law, it is not a judgment at all. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.K.PRASAD VS. P.ARUMUGAM has held as under: “8. In the eyes of law, it is not a judgment at all. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.K.PRASAD VS. P.ARUMUGAM has held as under: “8. In the instant case, the appellant tried to explain the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree as is evident from his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by his own affidavit. Even though the appellant appears not to be as vigilant as he ought to have been, yet his conduct does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. He should have been more vigilant but on his failure to adopt such extra vigilance should not have been made a ground for ousting him from the litigation with respect to the property, concededly to be valuable. While deciding the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the court should have kept in mind the judgment impugned, the extent of the property involved and the stake of the parties. We are of the opinion that the inconvenience caused to the respondent for the delay on account of the appellant being absent from the court in this case can be compensated by awarding appropriate and exemplary costs. In the interests of justice and under the peculiar circumstances of the case we set aside the order impugned and condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. To avoid further delay, we have examined the merits of the main application and feel that sufficient grounds exist for setting aside the ex-parte decree as well.” 8. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in MEENAKSHISUNDARAM TEXTILES VS. VALLIAMMAL TEXTILES LTD [ 2011(3) CTC 168 ] has held as under: “6. In terms of the above provisions, every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. A judgment which does not contain the bare minimum facts, the point for determination, the evidence adduced and the application of those facts and evidence for deciding the issue would not qualify it to be called as “judgment”. The judgment should contain the brief summary of the facts, the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim and the reasoning of the learned Judge either for decreeing the suit or its dismissal. The judgment should contain the brief summary of the facts, the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim and the reasoning of the learned Judge either for decreeing the suit or its dismissal. The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent. Judgment means cognitive process of reading a decision or drawing conclusion. Judgment is the basic requirement for a court and it means a decision or conclusion reached after consideration and deliberation. To put it differently, the basics of a judgment are to support by most cogent reasons that suggest themselves the final conclusion at which the Judge has conscientiously arrived.” 9. In the judgment of this Court in N.MAHESWARI VS. MARIAPPAN AND OTHERS [ 2013 (2) CTC 388 ] it has been held thus: “11. In so far as the case in hand is concerned, it is a typical example of mis-carriage of justice as the trial Court after framing three issues, did not discuss anything with regard to those issues by evaluating the evidence and simply decreed the suit in a slip-shod manner, that too, against the second defendant also when the plaintiff himself admits that he has not pressed the suit against the second defendant. 12. When such a judgment has been passed by the trial Court, this Court cannot close its eyes and direct the revision petitioner to go to the Appellate Court when the judgment and decree is apparently on the face of it illegal. Hence, I have no hesitation in exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in interfering with the judgment passed by the trial Court and the same is set aside as illegal and opposed to the provisions of C.P.C.” 10. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed on 04.10.2001 in O.S.No.631 of 2001 does not stand to scrutiny in the eyes of law and it is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed on 04.10.2001 in O.S.No.631 of 2001 does not stand to scrutiny in the eyes of law and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, without wasting time in the process of condoning the delay and restoring the application and protracting the proceedings, the following orders are passed:- (i) The order dated 07.03.2014 passed in the application filed to condone the delay of 2274 days delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree, in I.A.No.321 of 2009 in O.S.No.631 of 2001, is set aside and the application is allowed and the delay is condoned; (ii) Considering the merits of the application to set aside the exparte decree and finding sufficient grounds, the exparte decree dated 04.10.2001 passed in O.S.No.631 of 2001 is also set aside. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of resumption of physical hearing of the Courts. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.