Madras High Court
Jagadeesan (Died) ... Respondent ... vs D.Raghupathy on 9 July, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.245 & 246 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2353 of 2021
Jagadeesan (died) ... Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff
1.J.Ranganathan
2.J.Ravichandran
3.J.Sampathkumar ... Petitioners / 3rd parties / 3rd parties
(in both C.R.Ps)
Vs
1.D.Raghupathy
2.R.Padhma
3.R.Vidiya ... Respondents/Petitioners/Defendants 1,4 & 5
(Respondents in C.R.P.No.245 of 2021)
1.Christopherraj ... Respondent / Petitioner / 6th Defendant
(Respondent in C.R.P.No.246 of 2021)
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and final order passed in I.A.Nos.689 of
2017 and 690 of 2017 in O.S.No.590 of 2015 on the file of the III
Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore dated 11.11.2020.
For Petitioners .. Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
(in both C.R.Ps)
For Respondents .. Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
(in both C.R.Ps)
2
ORDER
C.R.P.No.245 of 2021 has been filed questioning the order dated
11.11.2020 in I.A.No.689 of 2017 in O.S.No.590 of 2015 pending on the
file of the III Additional Subordinate Court Coimbatore.
2.C.R.P.No.246 of 2021 has been filed questioning the order dated
11.11.2020 in I.A.No.690 of 2017 in O.S.No.590 of 2015 pending on the
file of the III Additional Subordinate Court Coimbatore.
3.I.A.No.689 of 2017 had been filed by the 1st, 4th and 5th
defendants seeking to condone the delay of 282 days in filing an
application to set aside the exparte decree.
4.I.A.No.690 of 2017 had been filed by the 6th defendant seeking
to condone the delay of 231 days in filing an application to set aside the
exparte decree.
5.It must be noted that O.S.No.590 of 2015 had been filed seeking
partition and separate possession and also for declaration of title. In the
suit, the defendants had taken a conscious decision not to participate in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
further proceedings of the suit and therefore an exparte preliminary
decree was passed on 02.11.2016.
6.Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
took the Court through merits of the case with respect to the contentions
raised by the respondents herein. However, I would refrain myself from
being drawn entering into a discussion on the merits of the suit.
7.Be that as it may, the plaintiff had the benefit of an exparte
preliminary decree on 02.11.2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff also filed an
application seeking to pass final decree. When notice was served on the
said application, the defendants woke up and decided that would be in
their interest, if they file applications to be permitted to participate in the
judicial proceedings. Therefore, two separate applications came to be
filed namely, I.A.Nos.689 of 2017 and 690 of 2017. Both these
Interlocutory Applications came up for consideration before the III
Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore and by orders dated
11.11.2020 had been allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/-
respectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8.Questioning that particular order, the plaintiff has come before
this Court filing these two Civil Revision Petitions.
9.It is to be mentioned that the plaintiff had also unfortunately
expired and the legal representatives had filed petition for seeking
permission to file this Revision Petition.
10.During the course of hearing of both the Interlocutory
Applications in I.A.Nos.689 of 690 of 2017, two witnesses were
examined on behalf of the petitioners namely, 1st and 4th defendants.
Documents were also marked. The main contention was that one of the
witness also suffered blindness in both eyes and later got eye sight in one
eye by treatment. The witness voluntarily grazed the witness box and had
come forward to tender evidence and also to subject himself for cross-
examination. It is also to be noted that on the side of the respondents also
three documents had been filed.
11.After considering all these facts and taking into consideration
the reasons given for filing the applications to condone such delay, the
learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore had taken a
decision that the delay should be condoned and that the parties should be
permitted to participate in the judicial proceedings. Exercise of such
discretion can be interfered with only if it is pointed out to be perverse. I
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
find no such reasons advanced by the learned counsels.
12.It would only be in the interest of the plaintiff that the
defendants, whom, after all he had chosen to implead as defendants while
instituting the suit, are permitted to participate in the judicial proceedings
and thereafter, a considered judgment is passed on merits.
13.I find no reasons to interfere with the two orders under revision.
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.The parties may go back to the III Additional Subordinate
Court, to agitate the issues before the said Court. I am confident that the
learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, will address the
issues by viewing them from a different perspective and not as stated by
me in this order.
09.07.2021
smv
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To,
The III Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.245 & 246 of 2021
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
