Madras High Court
Thiyagarajan vs Chandhan Bala on 1 March, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No. 2705 of 2016
and
CMP.No.13995 of 2016
Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Chandhan Bala ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to allow the above Civil Revision Petition by
setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003 passed in
O.S.No.22 of 1999 by the learned Sub Judge at Mayiladuthurai, remand the
suit in O.S.No.22 of 1999 with a direction to the learned Sub Judge,
Mayiladuthurai, decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rubanprabu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Muthukumar
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.22 of 1999 dated 18.06.2003 on the file of the
learned Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai, thereby, decreeing the suit for specific
performance.
2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff.
The respondent filed the suit for specific performance in respect of the suit
property, on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 23.07.1998. The
petitioner engaged his counsel before the trial Court and he reported no
instructions before the trial Court. Therefore, the suit was set ex-parte by
the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the
counsel appeared on behalf of the party reported no instructions before the
Court below, the Court below should have issued notice to the parties
concerned and the Court below without even issuing any notice, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
petitioner was set ex-parte and passed the judgment and decree against the
petitioner herein. He further submitted that though the petitioner was set ex-
parte, the Court below passed the judgment, without following the
procedures contemplated under Order 20 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil
Procedure Code. The Court below, without even any discussion over the
issues framed by the trial Court, simply recorded as if P.W.1 was examined
and Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked and decreed the suit.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the petitioner was originally set ex-parte on 24.06.2000 and thereafter, on
his application to set aside the ex-parte decree, it was set aside and again he
was set ex-parte on 25.06.2002. Once again, the petitioner filed a petition to
set side the ex-parte and the same was allowed and he was permitted to
contest the suit. Thereafter, once again, he was set ex-parte and the
judgment was passed by the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003. On the
strength of the decree, dated 18.06.2003, the respondent filed an Execution
Petition in E.P.No.62 of 2004 in which also the petitioner was set ex-parte
and the the sale deed was executed on 22.05.2005 and the same was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
registered as document No.287 of 2005. After execution of the sale deed,
the respondent filed the Execution Petition for delivery of possession in
E.P.No.55 of 2006. In fact, in the Execution Petition, the petitioner was duly
served with the notice and he also filed a petition in E.A.No.70 of 2011 for
summoning the original documents. The same was dismissed by an order
dated 27.08.2012. In fact, the petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.40 of
2014 to nullify the decree dated 18.06.2003 passed in the present suit. The
same was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016.
Therefore, after exhausting all remedies before the trial Court, the present
Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner as against the judgment and
decree dated 18.06.2003.
5. He further submitted that even before filing the Civil Revision
Petition, the petitioner's son filed a suit for partition in respect of the very
same property in O.S.No.191 of 2005 in which the petitioner herein has
been arrayed as first defendant and the respondent as fifth defendant. The
suit was also dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2008.
Again, the petitioner has set-up his daughter and filed another suit for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
partition in O.S.No.31 of 2007. Though the same was dismissed for default
and after restoring the said suit, it was dismissed on merits by the judgment
and decree dated 10.01.2019. Aggrieved by the same, his daughter filed an
Appeal Suit in A.S.No.17 of 2019 and the same is pending on the file of the
Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai. In fact, pending suit for partition,
she also filed an application in E.A.No.155 of 2015 for obstruction and
claiming 1/5th share in the suit property in the Execution Petition filed by
the respondent for delivery of possession. Therefore, the petitioner herein
suppressed all the said facts and approached this Court directly to nullify
the judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003. He further submitted that the
petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands and sought for
dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition with exemplary costs.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent.
7. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in
the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance, on the strength of
the agreement for sale dated 23.07.1998. The points for consideration in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
present Civil Revision Petition are that (i) Whether the petitioner can
approach this Court directly by way of Civil Revision Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed
in the suit, is maintainable when the counsel for the party concerned
reported no instructions before the trial Court. (ii) Whether the judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.22 of 1999 by the Court below is a judgment
or not as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
8. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance on 17.02.1999.
After receipt of the summons, the respondent engaged the counsel before
the trial Court. Thereafter, he also filed written statement on 09.04.2000
before the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to contest the suit and
as such, he was set ex-parte on 24.06.2000. However, it was set aside and
the petitioner was allowed to contest the suit. Again, he failed to appear
before the trial Court and he was set ex-parte on 25.06.2002. However, on
the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, he was again allowed to
contest the suit. On third time on 18.06.2003, the petitioner's counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
reported no instructions and the Court below held that the petitioner failed
to appear before the trial Court either by person or through his counsel and
passed the ex-parte judgment and decree.
9. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment reported in CDJ 1996 SC 534 (Sushila Narahari -vs-
Nandakumar), whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“4. A reading of the facts leaves us with no doubt that
the advocate has derelicted his duty to inform the client by
registered post if there was any non-cooperation on behalf of
the appellants. Consequently, when the suit had come up for
trial, he has withdrawn his vakalatnama without notice to
the respondents. The trial Court set the appellants ex-parte
and decreed the suit for specific performance. The
application for condonation of delay of 40 days was filed.
The Court refused to condone the delay. In view of the
above, we find that she is well justified in filing the
application with the delay. The delay is accordingly
condoned. The ex-parte decree is set aside. The trial Court is
directed to give opportunity to the appellants to cross-
examine the witness examined by the respondents of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
and also adduce evidence on her behalf. The trial Court is
further directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order.”
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment reported in CDJ 1997 SC 106 (Malkiat Singh -vs- Joginder
Singh), whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“There is no denying the fact that the appellants had
engaged a counsel to defend them in the civil suit. The
counsel for the appellants pleaded “no instructions” but the
court did not issue any notice to the appellants, who were
admittedly not present on the date when their counsel
reported no instructions in the court. It is nobody's case that
the counsel informed them after he had reported no
instructions to the court. The appellants only came to know
about the order dated 18.11.1991 and the ex-parte decree
dated 08.02.1992 when they approached their counsel on
06.06.1992. It was within four days thereafter that the
appellants filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13,
C.P.C for setting aside the order dated 18.11.1991 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
decree dated .12.1992.”
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the
judgment reported in CDJ 1992 SC 123 (Tahil Ram -vs- Ramchand),
whereas, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“4. It is not disputed in the present case that on March
15, 1974 when Mr.Adhia, Advocate withdraw from the case,
the petitioners were not present in Court. There is nothing on
the record to show as to whether the petitioners had the notice
of the hearing of the case on the day. We are of the view, when
Mr.Adhia withdraw from the case, the interests of justice
required, that a fresh notice for actual date hearing should
have been sent to the parties. In any case in the facts and
circumstances of this case we feel that the party in person was
not at fault and as such should not be made to suffer.”
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that when the
counsel has withdrawn his vakalat or reported no instructions, the Court
concerned should issue notice to the parties concerned.
13. In the case on hand, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
the respondent that the petitioner was absent before the trial Court on three
occasions. On two occasions, the ex-parte decree was set aside and he was
allowed to contest the suit. That apart, after the decree, the respondent filed
an Execution Petition and the sale deed was executed in his favour. When
the respondent filed another Execution Petition in E.P.No.55 of 2006 for
delivery of possession, the petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.70 of
2011 summoning the original documents from the records and the same was
also dismissed by an order dated 27.08.2012. Again, the petitioner filed a
suit in O.S.No.40 of 2014 challenging the present judgment and decree
dated 18.06.2003 as null and void on the file of the Principal Sub Court,
Mayiladuthurai and the same was also dismissed by the judgment and
decree dated 12.07.2016.
14. In fact, the petitioner's son and daughter filed the suit in
O.S.No.191 of 2005 and O.S.No.31 of 2007 for partition in respect of the
very same suit property, in which the petitioner is the first defendant and
the respondent is the 5th defendant. Both suits were dismissed and
aggrieved by the same, the daughter alone filed an Appeal Suit in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
A.S.No.17 of 2019 and it is pending on the file of the Additional District
Judge, Mayiladuthurai. Therefore, the petitioner exhausted all the remedies
before the Court below by way of different suits and failed before the Court
below. Suppressing all those facts, the petitioner approached this Court by
way of under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the
judgment and decree on the ground that his counsel reported no
instructions. Therefore, the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean
hands and also filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Therefore, the
above judgments are not helpful to the case on hand and this Civil Revision
petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
15. Insofar as the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition is
concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment
reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6290 (N.Maheswari -vs- Mariappan), in which
this Court has held as follows:-
“I am in entire agreement with the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that
this is an extraordinary case, in which, this Court has to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, as for the first time, I have come across such a
judgment that has been passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.3
of 2002. I am appalled and disgusted with the way the trial
Court disposed of the suit and though I would like to say
more, judicial restraint requires this Court from saying much
more without giving notice to the presiding officer.”
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment reported in 2015-3-L.W.705 (G.Selvam & ohters -vs- Kasthuri
(deceased and others), in which this Court has held as follows:-
“24. The main contention of
Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the Revision Petitioners, was that the above
judgment, passed by the trial Court, is against the provisions
of Order 20 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code. As per Order 20
Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
sufficient for the decision of the suit.
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.
26. In the case on hand, all the defendants were set ex-
parte. 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.
33. The next point that arises for consideration in this
Civil Revision Petition is whether the Civil Revision Petition
is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the preliminary decree, passed in O.S.752
of 1989.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
17. This Court has held that when the trial Court passed the judgment
without even framing the issues and without containing a concise statement
of the case, the points of determination, the decision thereon, and the
reasons for such decision are contrary to the provisions under Order 20
Rules 4 and 5 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the judgment passed by
the trial Court is not in confirmity with Order 20 Rules 4 and 5 of Civil
Procedure Code and as such, this Civil Revision Petition is maintainable
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
18. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the suit was decreed by the
judgment and decree dated 18.06.2003. Whereas, the petitioner approached
this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition, only on 07.06.2016. There
is absolutely no reason for the delay in approaching this Court that too for
the period of 13 years. As stated supra, the petitioner exhausted his remedy
by way of another suit in O.S.No.40 of 2014 for the very same relief and the
same was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2016. In the
meanwhile, he also set-up his own son and daughter filed suits for partition
in O.S.No.191 of 2005 and O.S.No.31 of 2007 in which the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
the respondent were arrayed as parties and both suits were dismissed.
Therefore, after exhausting all the remedies and suppressing relevant facts,
the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition. Though this Civil
Revision Petition is filed as against the ex-parte judgment and decree passed
that too not in confirmity with Order 20 Rules 4 and 5 of Civil Procedure
Code, he already exhausted all the remedies before the Court below. It is
nothing but forum shopping and as such, the petitioner is not at all entitled
to any relief sought for by him.
19. In fact, the respondent filed the Execution Petition in E.P.No.62
of 2004 in which also the petitioner was set ex-parte and the sale deed was
executed in favour of the respondent on 22.05.2005 and the same was
registered as document No.287 of 2005. The respondent also filed the
Execution Petition in E.P.No.55 of 2006 for delivery of possession. The
petitioner also filed an application in E.A.No.70 of 2011 summoning the
original documents from the records and the same was dismissed on
27.08.2012. It is a classic case of forum shopping by the petitioner and it is
liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
20. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the
respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.03.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kv
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
To
The Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
CRP.NPD.No. 2705 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.2705 of 2016
01.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
