Madras High Court
Parvathi vs Lakshmiammal on 27 July, 2023
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3131 of 2018
C.R.P(MD)No.707 of 2018
Parvathi ...Petitioner/Petitioner/
Defendant
Vs.
1.Lakshmiammal
2.Kosalai
3.Ramachandran
4.Indira Rani
Through her Power Agent,
Venkatesan. ...Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Artice 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
11.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.163 of 2016 in O.S.No.174 of 2015 on the
file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
C.R.P(MD)No.708 of 2018
Parvathi ...Petitioner/Petitioner/
Defendant
Vs.
1.Lakshmiammal
2.Kosalai
3.Ramachandran
4.Indira Rani
Through her Power Agent,
Venkatesan. ...Respondents/Respondents/
Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Artice 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated
11.10.2017 passed in I.A.No.164 of 2016 in O.S.No.174 of 2015 on the
file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
COMMON ORDER
The present civil revision petitions have been filed against the
order passed by the I Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil in
I.A.Nos.163 and 164 of 2016 in O.S.No.174 of 2015, dated 11.10.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
2. The petitioner is the defendant before the Trial Court. The
respondents herein have filed a suit for declaration to declare the sale
deed, dated 02.02.1979 which stands in the name of the defendant as null
and void. It appears that the plaintiffs have filed a plaint on 17.06.2015
before the Court. Thereafter, it appears that some notice has been issued
to the petitioner herein. However, due to the absence of the petitioner
herein, the petitioner was set ex parte on 09.12.2015 and that the matter
was posted for judgment. Only at that stage, the petitioner has come up
with an application to set aside the ex parte decree as well as to re-open
the defendant side evidence. The reason assigned by the petitioner herein
is that she is aged about 82 years and her husband is also aged about 86
years and her husband has fallen sick and there is no one to take care of
them as they do not have any issues. It is the further submission of the
petitioner that no prejudice will be caused in the event of re-opening the
suit and giving an opportunity for her to conduct the case on merits.
3. However, the respondents objected the application on the
ground by rising apprehension over the very filing of the affidavit by
herself and contended that this affidavit would have been filed by
somebody else by using the petitioner's name. Except this defense they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
did not seriously dispute about the age of the petitioner and her inability
due to the age.
4. However, the learned Trial Judge after considering the either
side submission dismissed the application on the ground that the reason
assigned by the petitioner that she has not received a summon cannot be
accepted at all as the postal endorsements in the cover sent to the
petitioner is returned with an endorsement refused. Therefore, there is no
bonafide in the petition. Hence, the application was dismissed by the
Court below.
5. I have given my anxious consideration on either side
submissions.
6. No doubt, there is no contra evidence to the observations made
by the learned Trial Judge that the notice sent to the petitioner was
returned as refused. But, this Court is prevailed over the grounds that the
suit was only instituted on 17.06.2015 and that the ex parte order was
passed on 09.12.2015. Further, the petitioner has come up with the
application to set aside the ex parte order and re-opening the defendant
side evidence immediately on 11.04.2016. Therefore, this Court could
not find any enormous delay in filing the application. The reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
assigned by the petitioner is that she is aged about 82 years and her
husband is aged about 86 years and they did not have any issues and was
suffering from various ailments and age. Hence, to meet the ends of
justice, an opportunity must be provided to the petitioner. In doing so,
absolutely the respondents in no way put to any prejudice. Here, what the
petitioner wants is an order on merits. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
allow this application. However, to compensate the hardship faced by the
respondents so far, this Court is inclined to impose some cost to the
petitioner.
7. In the result, these civil revision petitions stand allowed on a
condition to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in
both the civil revision petitions to the respondents. Considering the age
of the petitioner as well as her husband, who both are the senior citizens
aged about more than 80, the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of
the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
sn
To
1.The I Additional District Munsif Court,
Nagercoil.
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707 and 708 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)Nos.707
and 708 of 2018
27.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
