Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/2131/2016dismissed

Saroja v. P.Selvakumar

2018-08-20Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.08.2018 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2131 of 2016 and C.R.P.(PD)(MD).936 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD).Nos. 9998 of 2016 and 4099 & 4100 of 2017 In C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2131 of 2016:

1.Saroja 2.P.Murugan @ Pauliah (Petitioners 1 & 2 are represented by their Power holder M.Thanka Nadar ) .. Petitioners / Respondents 1 & 2 / Plaintiffs 1 & 3 vs.

1. P.Selvakumar

2. P.Ashok (Respondents 1&2 are represented by their Power Agent and Father N.Paramasivam) .. Respondents 1 & 2/Respondents/ Proposed Party Defendants 3 and 4

1.P.Selvakumar 2.P.Ashok (Petitioners 1 & 2 are represented by their Power Agent and Father N.Paramasivam) .. Petitioners / Petitioners / Defendants vs.

1. P.Saroja

2. Murugan @ Pauliah (Respondents 1 & 2 are represented by their Power Agent M.Thanga Nadar) .. Respondents 1 & 2/ Respondents1 & 2 /Plaintiffs

3. Anthony @ Rajappa .. 3rd Respondent/ 3rd Respondent/ 1st Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 06.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.141 of 2015 in O.S.No.58 of 1995 on the file of the I-Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil. For Petitioners : Mr. H.Thayumanaswamy For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya for Mr.G.Aravinthan For Respondent No.3 : No appearance COMMON ORDER The revision petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No.2131 of 2016 filed O.S.No.58 of 1995 on the of the I-Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil seeking the relief of declaration and injunction and recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed exparte on 21.01.2002. The execution petition was filed for executing the said decree.

In the said execution proceedings, the contesting respondents filed obstruction petition in the year 2013. Thereafter, in the year 2014, they filed I.A.No.140 of 2015 for setting aside the exparte decree. Since there was delay in filing the same, I.A.No.230 of 2014 was also filed for condoning the delay in filing the said I.A.No.140 of 2015. The Court below, by order dated 27.04.2016 allowed the same. Questioning the correctness the said order, C.R.P.(MD).No.2131 of 2016 came to be filed.

2. The petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No.936 of 2017 filed I.A.No.141 of 2015 in O.S.No.58of 1995 to implead them as additional defendants 3 & 4 in the suit proceedings. The said IA was dismissed on 06.01.2017. Questioning the correctness of the said order, C.R.P. (MD).No.936 of 2017 has been filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. It is not in dispute that the contesting respondents herein had purchased the suit property in the year 1994 itself. Eventhough, the revision petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No.2131 of 2016 filed the suit as a pauper in the year 1990 itself, the suit came to be numbered only in the year 1995. The contesting respondents in C.R.P.(MD).No.2131 of 2016 had purchased the property one year prior to that and they were not made party to the suit proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there was an inordinate delay in filing the application for setting aside the exparte decree. It is obvious that they got knowledge of the decree only in the year 2013

and filed an obstruction petition. Therefore, the Court below is right in allowing the I.A.No.230 of 2014.

5. This Court is of the view that the contesting respondents deserve to be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. The Court below has numbered the petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC., as I.A.No.140 of 2015 and the same is pending. The Court below shall allow the said IA and permit the purchasers/proposed defendants 3 & 4, to contest the suit on merits.

6. Since the suit is of the year 1994, the Court below shall conclude the entire suit proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, C.R.P.(MD).No.2131 of 2016 stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

7. In view of the order passed in C.R.P.(MD).No.2131 of 2016, the order impugned in C.R.P.(MD).No.936 of 2017 is set aside and accordingly, C.R.P.(MD).No.936 of 2017 stands allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To

1. The I-Additional Sub Judge, Nagercoil.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 COPIES) +2 CC To MR.H.THAYUMANASWAMY, Advocate SR. NO.79270 & 79271 +2 CC To MR.P.JESSI JEEVA PRIYA, Advocate SR. NO. 79404 & 79402 C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2131 of 2016 and 936 of 2017 20.08.2018 PJL TR/RSK/SAR-IV(04.10.2018)3P 8C