← Library
Madras High CourtWP/79/2018allowed

G.Jebakani v. Union Of India

2018-08-03Honourable Mr Justice T.Raja3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.01.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Rev.Appl.No.79 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.7098 of 2018 Poongavana Gounder (died) 1.Renu 2.Shanthi 3.Kala .. Petitioners Vs.

1.Arulmighu Dharmaraja Dhrowpathiamman Koil, Velapadi, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Velapadi, Vellore-1.

2.Pachaiyammal 3.Mani 4.Murugesan .. Respondents PRAYER: Review Application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order of this Court dated 08.12.2017 made in C.R.P.No.4183 of 2011.

Prayer in C.R.P.No.4183 of 2011:

Civil Revision Petition Under Section 115 of CPC against the fair and decreetal order dated 09.04.2011 made in IA.NO.686/2010 IN OS.NO.182/02 on the file of the Additionla District Munsif Court ,vellore.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Gouthaman

ORDER

This Review Application is filed to review the order of this Court dated 08.12.2017 made in C.R.P.No.4183 of 2011.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners has contended that the suit summons were not served on their father Poongavana Gounder and it was served to one Murugan, one of the sons of the deceased Poongavana Gounder. The plaint copy was not served on Poongavana Gounder as contemplated under Order V Rule 2 C.P.C. The review petitioners were not parties to the suit and exparte decree is not binding on them. The review petitioners were impleaded as legal legal heirs of the said Poongavana Gounder in the execution petition. The petitioners came to know about the exparte decree on 25.08.2008 and within 30 days, application to set aside the exparte decree was filed only as a precautionary step and prayed to review the order made in Civil Revision Petition.

4.From the materials available on record, it is seen that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners that the suit summons were not served on their father Poongavana Gounder was considered by this Court and rejected the same on the ground that the said Poongavana Gounder entered appearance through advocate Mr.A.Kumarasamy and did not contest the suit subsequently. The review petitioners have admitted that they came to know about the exparte decree on 25.08.2008 and they filed application to set aside the exparte decree within 30 days from the date of knowledge. The application to set aside the exparte decree was filed along with I.A.No.686 of 2010 to condone the delay of 657 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The first review petitioner has sworn to the affidavit only on 25.06.

2010. The learned counsel for the review petitioners is trying to re-argue the matter on the issues already heard and decided by this Court. He has not pointed out any error apparent on the order of this Court dated 08.12.2017 dismissing the Civil Revision Petition.

5.In the result, the Review Application is dismissed.

No costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

kj To, The Additional District Munsif, Additional District Munsif Court, vellore.

+1cc to Mr.A.Gouthaman , Advocate SR.No. 5683 Rev.Appl.No.79 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.7098 of 2018 A.SK(05/04/2019)