Madras High Court
Pakkiri Ammal vs S.Ponnammal on 16 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
1.Pakkiri Ammal
2.Minor Sukumar ..Appellants
Vs.
1.S.Ponnammal
2.Senthil
3.Venkatesan
4.Meenakshi
5.Southern Railway
Rep.by its General Manager,
Park Town, Chennai.
6.Senior Divisonal Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway III Floor,
NGO Annexe, Park Town, Chennai. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (t) of
C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal orders dated 11.12.2007 passed in
I.A.No.164 of 2006 in A.S.No.68 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sub
Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellants : M/s.R.Meenal
For Respondents : No appearance for R1 to R4
Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar for R5 & R6
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
JUDGMENT
The fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2007 passed in
I.A.No.164 of 2006 in A.S.No.68 of 2005 is under challenge in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2.The plaintiff is the appellant instituted a suit for declaration to
declare the plaintiff as the legally wedded wife of Swaminathan. The suit
decreed in favour of the plaintiff and an exparte decree was passed. The
defendants filed an Appeal Suit in A.S.No.68 of 2005. The first
Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.399
of 2002 and declined the relief sought for in the plaint. Thus, the plaintiff
is constrained to move the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
3.The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the
appellant had not received any summon / notice in the appeal suit. Thus,
the appellant could not able to contest the first appeal filed by the
respondents. The first Appellate Court decided the appeal suit without
noticing the fact that the summon / notice was not served to the appellant
and the judgment was delivered allowing the appeal, more specifically,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
4. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the
appellant made a submission that the appellant is entitled for an
opportunity to adjudicate the matter on merits. The suit was decreed
exparte. Thus, there was no proper adjudication before the Trial Court
even before the first Appellate Court, in view of the fact that summon
was not served to the appellant. Thus, in order to redress the grievance of
the parties, a complete adjudication is required. It is contended that the
appellant is ready and willing to contest the suit on merits and in
accordance with law.
5. In the present appeal, notice was issued to the respondents and
none appeared. However, substitution of service was effected and paper
publication is filed before this Court.
6. This being the facts and circumstances, the fair and decreetal
order dated 11.12.2007 passed in I.A.No.164 of 2006 in A.S.No.68 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
2005 is set aside and the first Appellate Court is directed to restore the
Appeal Suit and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. The parties to the appeal suit are directed to co-
operate for the early disposal of the appeal suit by not seeking
unnecessary and frequent adjournments on flimsy grounds.
7. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008 stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.02.2021
Pns
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
1.The Principal Sub Court, Cuddalore.
2.The General Manager,
Southern Railway
Park Town, Chennai.
3.Senior Divisonal Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway III Floor,
NGO Annexe, Park Town, Chennai.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
Pns
C.M.A.No.1825 of 2008
16.02.2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
