Madras High Court
V.R.Nageswari vs M.Girija on 18 June, 2021
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.06.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
CMP.Nos.16631 of 2018 & 1050 of 2020
M.Rangasamy
(Since deceased rep by legal heirs)
1. V.R.Nageswari
2. R.Kumaresan ... Petitioners
Vs.
M.Girija ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to
set aside the order dated 07.06.2018 made in I.A.No.346 of 2014 in
O.S.No.1 of 2011 of the file of the Sub Court, Udumalaipettai and allow the
I.A.No.346 of 2014 in O.S.No.1 of 2011 as prayer for.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For MA.P.Thangavel
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
For Mr.N.Ponraj
Page 1 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petitions is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipettai, in I.A.No.346 of 2014 in O.S.No.1 of 2011, thereby dismissing the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original deceased defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1 of 2011 as against the deceased defendant. After receipt of the summon, the original deceased defendant engaged counsel on his behalf and failed to file any written statement. Therefore, he was set exparte and exparte decree was passed on 30.06.2011. On the strength of the exparte decree, the respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.163 of 2011 and in the execution proceedings, notice was duly served on the deceased original defendant. However he failed to appear before the execution Court and he was set exparte before the execution Court on 26.09.2012. Therefore, he was instructed to file petition to set Page 2 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 aside the exparte decree passed in the execution Court and the same was allowed by an order dated 21.10.2013 in E.A.No.150 of 2012. After allowing the said petition, the original defendant died and the legal heirs of the deceased defendant filed petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in the suit along with the condone the delay petition in I.A.No.346 of 2014 for condoning the delay of 885 days. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that originally, the deceased defendant entered into an agreement for sale on 22.06.2007. Thereafter, it was cancelled by the cancellation of agreement for sale deed on 11.12.2009. Again on the same day, the respondent entered into another agreement for sale to purchase the suit property for the total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-, in which a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- received by the deceased defendant. Thereafter, the deceased defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and the respondent filed the suit for specific performance. In the said suit, the respondent never whispered about the earlier agreement for sale in respect Page 3 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 of the suit property. Further, on receipt of the summons, the deceased defendant engaged one Nagaraj Rao, Advocate on his behalf before the trial Court. He entered his appearance and failed to file any written statement before the trial Court. Therefore, the deceased defendant was set exparte and the exparte decree was passed on 30.06.2011.
3.1. He further submitted that the exparte judgment is not a judgment in the eye of law and the trial Court failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 4 of C.P.C. The Court below failed to create a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon and reasoning for such decisions. It is a cryptic and unreasoned judgment and as such it is ex facie illegal. Therefore, the trial Court while considering the application for condone the delay to set aside the exparte decree, this must also be taken into consideration. If the original judgment itself ex facie illegal, it cannot be allowed to continue.
3.2. He further submitted that in fact, the deceased defendant instructed his earlier counsel Mr.Nagaraj Rao to file an application to set Page 4 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 aside the exparte decree in the suit as well as the execution proceedings, immediately after receipt of the proceedings from the execution Court. He sworn affidavit in respect of the petition to set aside the exparte decree in the suit as well as the execution petition as earlier as on 16.10.2012 itself. Though the counsel filed the petition to set aside the exparte decree passed in the execution petition on 16.10.2012, he failed to file the said petition in the suit. Therefore, the mistake committed by the counsel on record should not be the reason to deny the right of hearing of the party. As instructed by this Court, the counsel who appearing now before the Court below verified with the Udumalpet Bar Association and found that the said Nagaraj Rao was hailing from Bangalore and he appeared some of the cases around 2009 to 2012. Now he is not attending any Court in Udumalpet and also no details his whereabouts.
3.3 He further submitted that after the demise of the original defendant, his legal heirs were impleaded as parties and they filed petition in I.A.No.346 of 2014 to set aside the exparte decree with the delay of 885 days. The delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree Page 5 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 categorically and sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay. The petitioners have examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 in support of their case and without considering those aspects, the Court below dismissed the petition. He also submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit a reasonable amount which was allegedly received by the deceased defendant to show their bonafide and prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following reported judgments:-
i) 2011 (3) CTC 168 – Meenakshisundaram Textiles Vs. Valliammal Textiles Ltd.,
ii) 2019 (3) MWN (Cvil) 647 – R. Stella Vs. V. Antony Fracis
iii) 2019 (3) MWN (Civil) 794 – Chinna Manthadi & ors Vs. N.Rosi Manthadi & ors.
4. Per contra, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. The deceased defendant entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent on 22.06.2007 and agreed to sell the suit property for the total sale Page 6 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. Thereafter on 11.12.2009, it was cancelled by the registered cancellation of agreement for sale deed. On the same day, again the deceased defendant entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the suit property for the total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. On the same day, he received a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- as advance and thereafter, he failed to perform his part of the contract. When the first agreement for sale was duly cancelled, the respondent need not to disclose the same in the plaint. Further Section 62 of the Contract Act duly contemplated that the respondent need not to state those facts about the cancellation of agreement for sale, since again on 11.12.2009, again he entered into another sale agreement with the deceased defendant.
4.1. He further submitted that though the deceased defendant entered appearance through his counsel, he failed to file written statement as such, he was set exparte on 11.04.2011 and posted the suit for exparte evidence on many occasions. After examination of witnesses only on 30.06.2011, the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.163 of 2011 and the deceased Page 7 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 defendant was duly served with notice from the execution Court. Even then, the deceased defendant failed to appear before the execution Court. Therefore, he was set exparte on 26.09.2012. Thereafter the deceased defendant filed petition in E.A.No.150 of 2012 to set aside the exparte decree passed in the execution proceedings. However, the deceased defendant did not file any application to set aside the exparte decree passed in the suit. Now after his demise, the petitioners herein put on blame on the counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the deceased defendant.
4.2. He further submitted that on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition to set aside the exparte decree, though it was stated that in the month of October, 2012 it was filed, after the order passed in E.A.No.150 of 2012 the present petition is filed with the delay of 885 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 885 days in filing the set aside the exparte decree. When the deceased defendant filed the petition to set aside the exparte order in the execution petition on 16.10.2012, no one prevented him from filing petition to set aside the exparte decree in the suit also. Page 8 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 Therefore it is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court and he wantonly failed to file the petition in time and after the order passed in the execution petition, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant came forward with the present petition. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition and it doesn't require any interference from this Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following reported judgments :-
i) 2009 (5) CTC 48 – Shanmugam Vs. Chokkalingam
ii) 2020 (5) MLJ 51 – Balakrishnan Vs. Shanmugadurai and ors
iii) 2020 (1) CTC 377 – C Ravi Vs. Sulochana & ors
iv) CRP.NPD.1065 of 2015 dated 24.03.2015 – N.Balan Vs. N.Kumaresan
5. Heard, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance on the strength of the agreement of sale dated 11.12.2009. The deceased defendant Page 9 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 engaged one Mr.Nagaraj Rao, Counsel on behalf of him before the trial Court in the suit. Thereafter, the deceased defendant failed to file written statement as such, he was set exparte and the exparte decree was passed on 30.06.2011. In pursuant to the exparte decree, the respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.163 of 2011, in which also the deceased defendant was duly served with notice. Again on receipt of the notice from the execution Court, the deceased defendant engaged the same counsel and he entered his appearance on behalf of the deceased defendant in the execution proceedings. Thereafter, he failed to file any counter as such, again the deceased defendant was set exparte.
7. In fact, the deceased defendant instructed his counsel to file petition to set aside exparte order in the execution proceeding and in the suit. He sworn the affidavit as early as on 16.10.2012 to file petition to set aside the exparte decree in the suit as well as the execution proceedings. But the said counsel failed to file the same before the Court as such, he engaged another counsel one Jayaraman and filed petition to set aside the exparte order in the execution proceedings. Therefore, the deceased was under Page 10 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 impression that the earlier counsel on record, who received the affidavit from the deceased defendant filed petition in the suit to set aside the exparte decree. After engaging the new counsel, he verified the proceedings and found that no petition was filed in the suit. Therefore, after demise of the original defendant, his legal heirs instructed the new counsel to file petition to set aside the exparte decree with the delay of 885 days.
8. On perusal of the exparte judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011, the trial Court passed the judgment as follows :-
@thjpf;Fk; gpujpthjpf;Fk;
11/12/2009k; njjpapy; Vw;gl;l fpiua
xg;ge;jg;gof;F jhthr; brhj;ijg;
bghWj;J gpujpthjp fpiua ghf;fpj;
bjhif U:/6000-=I bgw;Wf;bfhz;L
fpiuag; gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;f
cj;jutplf; nfl;L thjpahy; ,t;tHf;F
jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/
jhth fpiua xg;ge;jk;
th/rh/M/1Mfj; jhf;fy; bra;ag;
gl;Ls;sJ/ thjp gpujpthjpf;F mDg;gpa
mwptpg;g[ th/rh/M/2 Mft[k;. mij
Page 11 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
gpujpthjp bgw;Wf; bfhz;ljw;fhd
m";ryf xg;g[jy; ml;il th/rh/M/3
Mft[k; gpujpthjp mDg;gpa gjpy;
mwptpg;g[ th/rh/M/4 Mft[k; thjp
mDg;gpa kW mwptpg;g[ th/rh/M/5
Mft[k; mjw;fhd m";ryf xg;g[jy;
ml;ilfs; th/rh/M/6.7 Mft[k; jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/
th/rh/M/1 fpiua xg;ge;jj;jpy;
rhl;rpf; ifbaGj;J bra;j th/rh/M/2k;
th/rh/M/3k; thjpj; jug;g[ tHf;if
xj;Jiuj;J rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shu;fs;/
thjpj; jug;g[r; rhl;rpa';fs; kw;Wk;
Mtz';fis kWf;Fk; tpjkhf
gpujpthjp ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M$uhfhky;
njhd;whj; jug;gpduhf itf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;/ vdnt thjp nfhhpathW ,t;tHf;fpy;
jPu;g;g[r; bra;ag;gLfpwJ/
Kotpy; ,t;tHf;fpy; thjp nfhhpa
Vw;wifahw;Wf ghpfhuk; mspj;J
bryt[j; bjhifa[ld; jPu;g;ghiz
gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ/ fpiua ghf;fpj;
bjhif itg;g[r; bra;a thjpf;F 30
ehl;fs; mtfhrk; mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/
mt;thW bjhif itg;g[r; bra;ag;gl;l
Page 12 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
30 ehl;fSf;Fs; gpujpthjp jhthr;
brhj;ij bghWj;J thjpf;F fpiuag;
gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;f ntz;Lbkd;W
cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/ khw;Wg; gupfhuj;ijg;
bghWj;J ,t;tHf;F js;Sgo
bra;ag;gLfpwJ@/
The judgment passed by the trial Court is against the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C., and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in 2019 (3) MWN (Civil) 794 in the case of Chinna Manthadi & ors Vs. N.Rosi Manthadi & ors., which reads as follows :-
“15. As against the requirement of a judgment, Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to an "order" is also referable. In terms of that Section, an "order" means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree. When it comes to the judgment, it should state the grounds of a decree, Page 13 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 which includes an order. Hence, there is a vast difference between a judgment, a decree based on such judgment and an order.
16. Code of Civil Procedure does not define either an ex parte judgment or an ex parte decree.
It refers only to a judgment and a decree. In the event a judgment is rendered when the defendant fails to defend the suit by his absence, that judgment is known to be an ex parte judgment and the decree drawn on the basis of that judgment is known as an ex parte decree. Hence, even for an ex parte judgment and the decree, the basic ingredients of judgment must be available to the extent to indicate that the Court has applied its mind to the pleading, relief claimed thereunder, the evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the Court on the above.”
10. He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2019 (3) MWN (Cvil) 647 in the case of R. Stella Vs. V. Antony Fracis as follows :-
“18. It will be relevant to take note of certain judgments on this aspect.
(I). This Court in Meenakshisundaram Page 14 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 Textiles v. Vallilammal Textiles Ltd., Tiruppur, reported in (2011) 7 MLJ 652, has been held as follows:
“5. We have heard the respective learned counsel on either side on the above question. Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a “judgment” as meaning, the statement given by the judge on the grounds of a decree or order. In this context, Order XX Rules 4 (1) & (2) are also referable, which read as under:
“4. Judgment of Small Cause Courts.-(1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.
(2) Judgments of other Courts.- Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.” Order XX Rule 4(1) relates to the judgment of a Court of Small Causes. Inasmuch as the said judgment does not require more than the points for determination and that the decision thereon, a judgment of a Court of Small Causes shall not fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure.Page 15 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 Insofar as the judgment of other Court is concerned, in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2), it shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision and therefore it shall fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure and in that sense, all the ingredients contained in Order XX Rule 4(2) must be available in that judgment. This is more so in view of the provisions of Order XX Rule 5 relating to the duty of the Court to state its reasons on each issue.
That Rule reads as under:
“5.Court to state its decision on each issue - In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit”
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 Page 16 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 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 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 decison 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.
15. As against the requirement of a judgment, Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to an “order” is also referable. In terms of that Section, an “order” means the formal expression of any decision of a Page 17 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 Civil Court which is not a decree. When it comes to the judgment, it should state the grounds of a decree, which includes an order. Hence, there is a vast difference between a judgment, a decree based on such judgment and an order.
16. Code of Civil Procedure does not define either an ex parte judgment or an ex parte decree.
It refers only to a judgment and a decree. In the event a judgment is rendered when the defendant fails to defend the suit by his absence, that judgment is known to be an ex parte judgment and the decree drawn on the basis of that judgment is known as an ex parte decree. Hence, even for an ex parte judgment and the decree, the basic ingredients of judgment must be available to the extent to indicate that the Court has applied its mind to the pleading, relief claimed thereunder, the evidence and the conclusion arrived at by the Court on the above.” (II). This Court in G.Selvam and others v.
Kasthuri (deceased) and others, reported in 2015 (4) CTC 673, has held as follows:
Page 18 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 “7. The main contention raised by Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Trial Court had passed a preliminary decree by non-speaking judgment. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is against the settled propositions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this court. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that since the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is against the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C., and also the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this court, the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said judgment and decree is maintainable.
25. As per Order 20 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, Judgments of the Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.Page 19 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
26. In the case on hand, all the defendants were set exparte. The trial court did not frame any issue for deciding the suit. The trial court simply examined P.W.1 and found that the claim made by him is proved. The judgment pronounced by the trial court is clearly contrary to the provisions of Order.20 Rule 4 and Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code.
27. In the judgment reported in 2012 (5) SCC 265 (C.N. Ramappa Gowda vs C.C. Chandregowda (dead) by LRs and another, cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a suit, where the defendants failed to file their written statement, the non-filing of the written statement should not have any penal consequences and the court should proceed cautiously and exercise its discretion in a just manner and even in the absence of written statement, burden of proof would remain on plaintiff and his mere assertion in plaint would not be sufficient to discharge the burden.” In the light of the above judgment, it is the duty of the trial Court to follow Page 20 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 the procedure as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 5 of C.P.C., by giving the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. If this is not satisfied and a cryptic unreasoned judgment is passed, while considering the application for condone delay in setting aside the exparte decree, this must also be taken into consideration. If the exparte judgment is cryptic illegal, it cannot be allowed to continue and it will have a bearing, while considering the condone delay petition to set aside the exparte decree.
11. In terms of the provisions as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 4 & 5 of C.P.C., 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 points 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 and 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. Page 21 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent. The judgment means cognitive process of reading a decision or drawing conclusion. Judgment is the basic requirement for a court and it means a decison 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.
12. In the case on hand, on perusal of the judgment passed by the trial Court, it does not contain bare minimum facts, points for determination, evidence adduced and application of those facts and evidence for deciding the issue. Therefore, it would not qualify to be called as “judgment”, as such the above judgments are squarely applicable to the case on hand. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not helpful to the case on hand, since the fault committed by the earlier counsel on record who entered appearance on behalf of the deceased defendant cannot be the reason for the dismissal of the condone delay petition to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, this Court has no Page 22 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 hesitation in exercising its power under Artile 227 of the Constitution of India, in interfering with the judgment passed by the trial Court.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the exparte judgment and decrree dated 30.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2011 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following directions :-
i) The order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipettai, in I.A.No.346 of 2014 in O.S.No.1 of 2011, is hereby set aside and the application in I.A.No.346 of 2014 is allowed.
ii) The exparte judgment and decree dated 30.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.1 of 2011 is set aside on condition that, the petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten laksh only) to the credit of the suit in O.S.No.1 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipettai, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which the order passed by this Court shall stand automatically cancelled.Page 23 of 26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018
iii) On such deposit, the trial Court is directed to restore the suit and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of three months from the date of restoration of the said suit.
14. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18.06.2021 Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rts Page 24 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Udumalaipettai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Page 25 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts order in C.R.P.(NPD)No.2831 of 2018 CMP.Nos.16631 of 2018 & 1050 of 2020 18.06.2021 Page 26 of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/