Madras High Court
M/S.Ragavaa Knit Compactors vs The Secretary on 8 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
M/s.Ragavaa Knit Compactors
Rep. by its Partner
Mr.A.P.Subramaniam ..Appellant
Vs.
1.The Secretary
Ministry of Textiles
New Delhi
2.Government of India
Rep. by its Director (Enforcement)
Central Public Information Office
Ministry of Textiles
Office of the Textile Commissioner
Nishtha Bhavan
New CGO Building
No.48, New Marine Lines
Mumbai-400 020.
3.The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited
No.692, Anna Salai
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
4.The Branch Manager
Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment
Corporation Limited
Kumaran Shopping Complex
II Floor, New Railway Station
Tiruppur. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of
CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 10.10.2018 made in
I.A No.744 of 2018 in O.S No.87 of 2017, on the file of the II
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran
For Respondents : M/s.Sunitakumari for R1 & R2
Mr.K.Magesh for R3 & R4
JUDGMENT
The fair and decreetal order dated 10.10.2018 passed in I.A
No.744 of 2018 in O.S No.87 of 2017 is under challenge in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and the suit was
instituted for recovery of money. The suit was dismissed for default on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
06.03.2018, due to the non-appearance of the counsel for the plaintiff.
Thereafter, an interlocutory application under Order 9 Rule 9 was filed
to set aside the order of dismissal dismissing the suit for default. The
said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Thus, the appellant is
constrained to move for an appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that it
is a mistake made on the part of the counsel who did not appear on that
day and therefore, there is no intention on the part of the appellant not to
appear before the Court and therefore, he is entitled for an opportunity
to contest the case.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents objected the said
contention by stating that the matter was called and none appeared for
the plaintiff and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the suit for default
and further, the reasons stated for restoration of the suit was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
convincing and thus, the trial Court is right in rejecting the application.
Consequently, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that all the suits are to
be decided on merits by affording opportunity to all the parties
concerned. Admittedly, the suit was dismissed for default due to the
non-appearance of the plaintiff on 06.03.2018. However, an
interlocutory application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed on
02.04.2018 within the period of limitation. This apart, the non-
appearance of the counsel for the plaintiff would not affect the right of
the plaintiff to pursue the suit on merits and in accordance with law.
This Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has committed an error
in not providing opportunity to the appellant to adjudicate the suit on
merits and in accordance with law. This being the factum, the fair and
decreetal order dated 10.10.2018 passed in I.A No.744 of 2018 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
O.S.No.18 of 2017 is set aside and the present Civil Miscellaneous
No.2519 of 2019 stands allowed. In view of the fact that the suit is of
the year 2017, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of ten months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6.The parties are directed to co-operate for the earlier disposal of
the suit. The parties are restrained from seeking unnecessary
adjournments. Even in case, adjournments are to be granted on genuine
grounds, the Court should record the reasons. The adjournments on
flimsy grounds are liable to be rejected in limini. No costs.
08.01.2021
uma
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
uma
To
The II Additional District and Sessions Judge
Tiruppur
C.M.A.No.2519 of 2019
08.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
