Madras High Court
V.Durairaj vs M.Lakshmanan ... Sole on 11 December, 2023
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
and
C.M.P.Nos.27652 & 27686 of 2023
V.Durairaj ... Petitioner in both CRPs
-Vs-
M.Lakshmanan ... Sole respondent in
C.R.P. No.4639 of 2023
Pakkirisamy (Died)
1.M.Lakshmanan
2.M.Panneerselvam ... Respondents in
C.R.P. No.4651 of 2023
Prayer in CRP 4639 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 25.07.2023 made in C.M.A. No.04 of 2019 in I.A. No.1148
of 2018 in O.S. No.84 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Ulundurpet.
Prayer in CRP 4651 of 2023 : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
decree dated 25.07.2023 made in C.M.A. No.03 of 2019 in I.A. No.871 of
2018 in O.S. No.83 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif,
Ulundurpet.
In Both CRPs
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Advocate
for Mr.R.Agilesh
For Respondents : Ms.AMalathi Devapriyam
(Caveator)
ORDER
Challenging the impugned orders passed in C.M.A.Nos.3 and 4 of
2019 in I.A.Nos. 1148 and 871 of 2018 in O.S.Nos.83 and 84 of 2010
passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ulundurpet respectively, the Revision
Petitioner/appellant preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.
2. The Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.83 of
2010 and in another suit in O.S.No.84 of 2010, he is the defendant. Before
the trial court, both suits ordered for joint trial and it is posted for
evidence. But, due to giddiness and age factor, he was not able to attend
the court. So, he was called absent and accordingly, the suit filed by him
in O.S.No. 83 of 2010 was dismissed for default and the suit filed by the
respondent in O.S.No.84 of 2010 was decreed. Now, based on the decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
passed in O.S.No.84 of 2010, the respondent herein initiated execution
proceeding in E.P.No.5 of 2019 in order to get recovery of possession of
property from the Revision Petitioner. After receipt of notice in E.P., the
Revision Petitioner filed an application to restore the suit in O.S.No. 871
of 2018, but the same was dismissed by the trial judge stating that
purposely he is not cooperating with the proceedings. Challenging the
said findings, the Revision Petitioner/appellant preferred this Civil
Revision Petition.
3. Furthermore, in an another suit filed by the respondent for the
relief of declaration and consequential relief of recovery of possession, he
filed an application in I.A.No.1148 of 2018 praying to set aside the
exparte decree and the same was dismissed by the trial judge stating that
proper reason was not assigned. Against which, he preferred an appeal in
C.M.A.No.4 of 2019 and the same was also dismissed confirming the
order passed by the trial judge. Aggrieved over the same, the Revision
Petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent would submit that
purposely to drag on the proceedings, he refused to enter into witness box,
thereby the trial judge rightly proceeded with the suit filed by him and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
after the initiation of execution proceedings, now he came forward with
the application without proper reason and the same was rightly considered
by the trial judge. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.
5. Considering both side submissions and on perusal of records, on
11.01.2018 an exparte decree was passed against the Revision Petitioner.
Now, to execute the decree, the respondent filed an Execution Petition in
E.P.No.5 of 2019. Admittedly, both are close relatives and both parties are
aged about 80 years. The respondent Lakshmanan filed a suit in the year of
1995 for declaration and recovery of possession against the Revision
Petitioner herein. All these days, he is not able to get justice from the
court. Due to non-communication of revision petitioner, he was not able to
proceed with the trial. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would
submit that before the trial court, he filed written statement. Considering
the fact that since the matter is involved with the property, in order to give
one more opportunity, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings of
trial judge in in C.M.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2019 in I.A.Nos. 1148 and 871 of
2018 in O.S.Nos.83 and 84 of 2010 and allowed both the applications. The
Revision Petitioner is directed to cooperate with further proceedings and
he is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the respondent's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
counsel within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order and on such payment, he is permitted to participate with the
proceedings in both suits. The trial judge is directed to complete the joint
trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
11.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
rpp
N.B. : Issue order copy on 18.12.2023
To
The Subordinate Judge, Ulundurpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P.Nos.4639 & 4651
of 2023
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
