Madras High Court
Padmanabhan vs R.Rajeswari on 27 April, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2127 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.13489 of 2020
Padmanabhan
.. Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner/Defendant
Vs
R.Rajeswari .. Respondent/Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the decree and judgment made in C.M.A.No.3 of
2018 dated 03.03.2020 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Salem
confirming the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.1321 of 2015 in
O.S.No.683 of 2009 dated 11.01.2018 of the file of Principal District
Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioner .. Ms.B.Raji
For Respondent .. Ms.Zeenath Begum
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Revision Petition has been filed questioning the order dated
03.03.2020 in C.M.A.No.3 of 2018. The said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
was filed questioning the order in I.A.No.1321 of 2015 in O.S.No.683 of
2009 which was pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif,
Salem.
2.The revision petitioner herein / appellant in CMA / petitioner in
I.A.No.1321 of 2015 was the defendant in O.S.No.683 of 2009. That suit
had been filed seeking eviction. The present petitioner / defendant had
been residing in the suit property for over the period of 25 years.
3.The said suit had a very very long innings particularly at the
stage of cross-examination of PW-1. A perusal of the order now under
question would show the extreme frustration which the learned Principal
District Munsif, Salem should have been put to by the acts of avoiding
the Court proceedings by the revision petitioner herein. He had simply
refused to go to Court. He refused to participate in the judicial
proceedings. He sought adjournments after adjournments without taking
any steps to cross-examine PW-1.
http://www.judis.nic.in
4.The anguish of the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem
can be visualized from the dates which he had given. The suit, as stated,
was filed seeking eviction. Written statement was also filed. Thereafter,
issues were settled. PW-1 was examined in chief for the first time on
10.01.2011. Thereafter, adjournments were sought for cross-examination
of PW-1 and the revision petitioner herein had not come forward to
cross-examine PW-1 even though nearly about 20 to 30 adjournments
had been granted spanning over five to six years.
5.First he did not cross-examine PW-1 and an application was
filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner. That application was dismissed. Thereafter, again it was
posted for cross-examination of PW-1. He was set exparte and an exparte
decree was passed on 05.04.2011. An application was filed seeking to set
aside the exparte decree and that was allowed on 03.01.2012. Thereafter,
it was again posted for cross-examination till 20.12.2013. He had
questioned the order of dismissing the application seeking appointment
of Advocate Commissioner in C.R.P.(PD).No.3161 of 2014. It was
dismissed on 28.08.2014 and the learned Judge also extracted the
relevant portion of the said order and noted the anguish of the learned
Principal District Munsif Salem.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6.Thereafter, again the revision petitioner filed an application to
reject the plaint, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, he had filed
another application to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
That was also dismissed. Thereafter he had filed an application under
Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead one Nagarajan as a party to
the suit. That application was also dismissed.
7.Finally, since the petitioner had not cross-examined PW-1 and
PW-2 and had also not come forward to adduce evidence, on 20.10.2014,
the Trial Court had set the petitioner exparte and on 28.10.2014 passed
exparte decree.
8.The application in I.A.No.1321 of 2015 was filed seeking to set
aside the exparte decree. The Principal District Munsif, Salem had, in my
opinion correctly dismissed the said application.
9.C.M.A.No.3 of 2018 was filed, which came up for consideration
before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem and by an order dated
03.03.2020, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was also dismissed.
10.Again I must concur with the reasons and the nature of order
passed. It is a very detailed order. As a matter of fact, it can be taken that
the Court literally begged the revision petitioner to come forward to
cross-examine PW-1. The Court just felt short of going to the residence
http://www.judis.nic.in
of the petitioner along with PW-1 requesting him to cross-examine PW-1
sparing him the trouble of coming to court. The string of dates shows
the conduct of the petitioner in refusing to participate in the judicial
proceedings. When the petitioner has such a attitude, there is no wonder
that both the Courts below had rejected the application and the plea to set
aside the exparte decree.
11.It had been noted in the order of the Appellate Court that the
respondent herein would be more than 80 years as on date of passing of
the order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. He should have crossed 80
years by now.
12.The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable to the
respondent and if not paid to be sought in Execution Proceedings.
27.04.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
smv
To
The Principal Subordinate Court,
Salem.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
C.R.P.(NPD) No.2127 of 2020
27.04.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
