Madras High Court
Saida Banu(Died) vs Ramasami(Died) on 11 April, 2023
S.A.No.889 of 2002
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
S.A.No.889 of 2002
1.Saida Banu(Died)
2S.Ajzal Batcha(Died)
(A2 is brought on record as LR of the deceased
sole appellant vide order dated 27.11.19)
3.Ooma Ghazala Parveen
4.Afnan Fathima
5.Athufa Mariyam
6.Mohammed Ishaque
7.Minor Arfa Zainab ...Plaintiffs/Applts./Applts.
(Rep. by her mother third appellant)
(A3 to 7 are brought on record as
LRS of the deceased 2nd appellant vide
Court order dated 06.01.2022)
-Vs-
1.Ramasami(Died)
2.Balachandar
3.Sundaramoorthy
4.Krishnamoorthy(Died)
5.Kumar
6.Palani
_________
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
(R3 to R6 are brought on record
as LRS of the deceased 1st respondent
vide Court Order dated 08.01.2018)
7.Dhanapackiam
8.Minor Sowmiya
9.Minor Shalini ... Defts./Respts./Respondents
(Minors 8&9 rep. by their mother
and natural guardian Dhanapackiam)
(R7 to R9 are brought on record as LRS of
the deceased 4th respondent vide Court
order dated 08.01.2018)
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree dated 28.12.2001 passed in A.S.No.
175 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Court, Trichi, preferred
against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2001 passed in O.S.No.404 of
1990 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichi.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Chandrasekar
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
_________
Page 2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
JUDGMENT
The first appellant herein is the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.
404 of 1990 against the original respondents before the III Additional
District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli, to declare the ex-parte decree passed
in O.S.No.845 of 1987 on 10.03.1988 as null and void and also a
consequential relief for permanent injunction to implead the ex-parte order.
The trial Judge, after the trial, dismissed the suit for default. Against which,
the first appellant herein filed an appeal before the Additional District
Court, Trichirappalli, in A.S.No.175 of 2001. The said appeal was dealt with
by the lower appellate Court and dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the
same, the first appellant/plaintiff has filed the present second appeal before
this Court raising the following substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether in law the Courts below are not wrong
in failing to see that a decree granted ex-parte without notice
to the defendant is null and void.
2)Whether in law the Courts below are right in
finding that notice was not required to the defendants in the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
petition under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C to restore a suit
dismissed for default.
3)Whether in law the Courts below are right in
omitting to see that the procedural law not having been
followed the decree is null and void.”
2.The case of the first appellant is that the respondents
herein/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.845 of 1987 before the District
Munsif Court, Trichirappalli,against the original appellants herein for
injunction. In the said suit, ex-parte order was passed on 28.01.1988 for
non-filing of written statement. During the pendency of the said suit, the
second defendant viz., Mohammed Ishaq. Thereafter, the case was posted on
29.01.1988 for taking ex-parte evidence. On that day the respondents herein
did not appear. Therefore, the suit was dismissed for default, on 29.01.1988.
Thereafter, they filed a petition in I.A.No.194 of 1988 to restore the said
suit. The said application was allowed and the suit was taken on file, on the
same day ie., on 10.03.1988, without following the procedure contemplated
under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C and the said suit was dismissed for default on
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
the same day itself. Though the plaintiffs/respondents herein filed an
application to restore the suit, the Court ought to have issued notice to the
defendant/appellant herein. In that application, without following the
procedure, ex-parte evidence was taken on 10.03.1988 and the suit was
decreed on the same day itself as against the first appellant herein and she
did not know about the ex-parte decree. Without giving notice and without
the knowledge of the first appellant herein, the respondent, with the
connivance of the respondents' counsel, got ex-parte decree decree, is null
and void.
3.Therefore, the appellants herein filed the present suit in O.S.No.
404 of 1999 to declare the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.845 of 1987 as
nullity on the ground of fraud. Further, the lower Appellate Court failed to
consider the fact that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit in O.S.No.
845 of 1987 for default on 29.01.1988. Thereafter, the respondents
herein/plaintiffs filed the application to restore the said suit. The said
application was allowed, without serving notice to the first appellant herein
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
and the said suit was decreed as ex-parte. Therefore, ex-parte decree would
not bind the first appellant herein. Therefore, the trial Court has not
followed the procedure contemplated under Order 9 Rule 9 and allowed the
application in I.A.No.194 of 1988 on 10.03.1988. Therefore, the second
appeal is to be allowed.
4.The case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that the respondents
originally filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli, in
O.S.No.845 of 1987 for injunction. In the said suit, summon was served to
the respondents/plaintiffs herein and they did not file written statement,
despite sufficient opportunity was given. Since they were called absent, set
ex-parte on 28.01.1988 and thereafter, the case was posted on the next day
ie., on 29.01.1988 for taking ex-parte evidence on the side of the
respondents/ plaintiffs. Since the respondents/plaintiffs did not appear on
29.01.1988, the suit was dismissed for default. Subsequently, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.194 of 1988 to set
aside the dismissal order and restore the said suit. The said application was
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
allowed on 10.03.1988 and the suit was restored and ex-partee evidence was
taken. The suit was decreed on the same day, ie., on 10.03.1988., since the
respondents herein/plaintiff did not file written statement. Thereafter, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed restoration application. The trial Court took the
interlocutory application, based on the endorsement made by the
respondents/plaintiffs' counsel and allowed the said application and the suit
was restored and ex-parte decree was passed on the same day. Therefore,
there is no lapse on the procedure.
5.Further, it is stated that the first appellant/defendant, who
suffered an ex-parte decree has two remedies of either to file an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex-parte
decree or to file an appeal before the Appellate Court and the same has not
been done. Instead of invoking either under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., or
Section 96 of CPC, straightaway the appellant/defendant filed the suit on
the ground of fraud. Therefore, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court
have rightly appreciated the facts of the case and dismissed the same.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
Hence, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
available on record.
7.While admitting the second appeal, this Court considering the
material and facts, formulated the following substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether in law the Courts below are not wrong in
failing to see that a decree granted ex-parte without notice to the
defendant is null and void.
2)Whether in law the Courts below are right in finding
that notice was not required to the defendants in the petition
under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C to restore a suit dismissed for
default.
3)Whether in law the Courts below are right in
omitting to see that the procedural law not having been followed
the decree is null and void.”
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
8.Admittedly, the original respondents herein filed the suit in
O.S.No.845 of 1987 against the original appellant herein, for injunction
before the District Munsif, Trichirappalli. Since non-filing of written
statement by the defendants in that suit, they were set ex-parte and the Court
passed ex-parte order against them, on 28.01.1988. Thereafter, the case was
posted for taking ex-parte evidence, since non appearance of the
respondents/plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed. Pursuant to which, they filed
an application to restore the suit and the same was allowed and ex-parte
decree was passed. The only contention of the appellants herein is that since
the suit was dismissed for default and later, it was restored, without giving
notice or summon to the first appellant/defendant. Therefore, ex-parte
decree passed by the trial Court without giving notice to the first
appellant/defendant is vitiated on the ground of fraud and it is null and void.
Therefore, decree passed in the suit was null and void.
9.The appellant raised the substantial questions of law as stated
above. However, considering the materials, this Court, while admitting the
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
second appeal, formulated the substantial questions of law as stated above.
Question No.1
10.A careful reading of the entire plaint, pleadings, evidence and
the judgment of both the Courts below and also the substantial questions of
law formulated by this court, after hearing the appeal and on seeing the
entire records, this Court does not find any substantial question of law. No
doubt, non-appearance of the parties, the suit was dismissed as ex-parte.
Subsequently at the instance of the parties, either to set aside the ex-parte
decree or to restore the dismissal order, notice has to be served to the other
side. Under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C, made clear that on deciding this
application, notice has to be served to the other side. However, in this case,
the respondents/plaintiffs herein filed a suit in O.S.No.845 of 1987 against
the first appellant/defendant herein for injunction. In that suit, summon was
duly served to the appellant herein and she also entered appearance through
counsel viz., Swaminathan and the case was adjourned at the request of the
appellants/plaintiffs for filing written statement, even after giving an
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
opportunity to the appellant herein, she did not file written statement till
28.01.1988 and therefore, when the matter was listed on 28.01.1988 for
filing written statement, the appellant herein did not file written statement,
ex-parte order was passed and the case was adjourned to 29.01.1988 for
taking ex-parte evidence on the side of the respondent/plaintiff. Since the
respondent/plaintiff herein did not appear for taking ex-parte evidence, the
suit was dismissed on 29.01.1988 for default. Subsequently, the
respondent/plaintiff filed an application to set aside the dismissal order
passed by the trial Court and such application was taken on file in I.A.No.
194 of 1988 and the same was allowed on 10.03.1988 and subsequently, ex-
pate evidence was taken on the same day and ex-parte decree was passed as
against the appellant/defendant. Therefore, the main contention of the
appellant herein is that before restoring the suit, the trial Court ought to
have sent notice to other side viz., the appellant/defendant in that suit and
without following the procedure contemplated under Order 9 Rule 9, simply
restored the suit, even without giving notice to the defendant in that
suit/appellant herein. It is noted that on 28.01.1988 when the case was listed
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
for filing written statement of the appellant herein since she did not file the
written statement she was set ex-parte on the ground of non filing of the
written statement exparte order was passed and case was posted to next day
for taking ex-parte evidence, due to non-appearance of the respondent
herein for taking ex-parte evidence, the case was dismissed for default. It
shows that on the date of passing of dismissal order, the appellant already
remained ex-parte. Therefore, merely because notice was not given before
restoring the suit, the decree is not vitiated on the ground of fraud in the
absence of establishing collusion and fraud.
Question No:2
11.On a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that while
invoking the provisions under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., notice is to be sent
to the other side, whereas, in this case, even prior to dismissal of the suit,
the appellant herein/defendant in that suit remained ex-parte and ex-parte
order was passed. The appellant has not filed any application under Order 9
Rule 7 of C.P.C, to set aside the ex-parte order. When the suit was listed on
29.01.1988, the respondents/plaintiffs did not appear. Therefore, the suit
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
was dismissed. Thereafter, when the respondent/plaintiff filed an application
in I.A.No.194 of 1988 to restore the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C., the
learned counsel made an endorsement that since the appellant/defendant
was already set ex-parte, no notice is necessary to send. Based on that, the
said application was taken on file without sending notice to the
appellant/defendant and ex-parte decree was passed. Since the
appellant/defendant already entered appearance in that suit and also
engaged the counsel, she did not file written statement and ex-parte order
was passed. On the date of passing of order of dismissal of suit for default
was passed, the defendant was already set ex-parte subsequently, suit was
dismissed for default. The appellant herein had not taken any steps to set
aside ex-parte order passed against her, therefore, no prejudice would be
caused however, she has got remedy to file either petition to set side ex-
parte decree or appeal challenging the ex-parte decree but not fresh suit to
set aside ex-parte decree null and void in the absence of proof of fraud or
collusion.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
Question No.3
12.The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.194 of
1988 to restore the appeal. Based on the endorsement made by the counsel
for the respondents/plaintiffs, the Court without giving notice to the
appellant/defendant, restored the suit and ex-parte decree was passed.
Therefore, the present suit has been filed. However, instead of filing the
present suit, he ought to have filed an application to set aside the ex-parte
decree by invoking Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC or an appeal under Section 96
of C.P.C challenging the ex-parte decree passed against her and without
invoking that, she filed a separate suit on the ground that there was a fraud.
Once there are enabling provisions are available to the appellant to set aside
the ex-parte decree passed against her in O.S.No.845 of 1987. The appellant
ought to have invoked those provisions and without invoking those
provisions, she filed a fresh suit only on the ground of fraud. Since because
certain procedures are not followed, the decree cannot be nullity on the
ground of fraud. The defendant therein has got remedy under specific
provisions. However, in this case, since collusion or fraud has not been
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
established, the decree passed in O.S.No.845 of 1987 dated 29.01.1988
cannot be declared as null and void. Hence, the substantial question of law
No.3 is answered accordingly.
13.On perusal of the entire materials, this Court has found that
admittedly when the respondents filed an application in I.A.No.194 of 1988
to restore the suit, the learned counsel has made an endorsement that no
notice need to be given to the appellant/defendant, since she was already
remained ex-parte for non-filing of the written statement, no notice is
necessary to send. Based on which, the trial Court, without issuing notice,
passed ex-parte decree. The appellant/defendant herein has not established
that the respondents/plaintiffs obtained ex-parte decree by fraud. Since it
was only an ex-parte decree, the appellant/defendant has got remedy to set
aside the ex-parte decree by filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.,
before the same Court or filing appeal before the Appellate Court. Unless he
is able to establish that the decree was obtained by fraud, the fresh suit is
not maintainable.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
14.Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any valid
reason to allow this appeal and there is no perversity in the judgment of the
trial Court and the first appellate Court. The substantial questions of law
formulated by this Court in the appeal, are answered accordingly as against
the appellants.
15.In the result, the Second Appeal fails and the same stands
dismissed. No costs.
11.04.2023
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Additional District Court,
Trichi.
2.The III Additional District Munsif Court,
Trichi.
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.889 of 2002
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
Ns
S.A.No.889 of 2002
11.04.2023
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
