Madras High Court
Kamala vs K.Palanisamy on 8 March, 2023
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023 and
CMP.No.4199 of 2023
CRP.No.517 of 2023
Kamala ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Palanisamy
2.K.Periyasamy
3.Mohanasundaram
4.Salomon ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to allow this revision and to set aside the order of II
Additional Sub Court, Erode passed in IA.No.5 of 2022 in OS.No.91 of 2014
dated 13.10.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Indupriya
For Respondents : Mr.J.Ranjithkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
CRP.No.519 of 2023
Kamala ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.K.Palanisamy
2.K.Periyasamy
3.Mohanasundaram
4.Salomon ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to allow this revision and to set aside the order of II
Additional Sub Court, Erode passed in IA.No.6 of 2022 in OS.No.91 of 2014
dated 13.10.2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.Indupriya
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.J.Ranjithkumar
COMMON ORDER
Challenging the orders passed in IA.Nos.5 & 6 of 2022 in
OS.No.91 of 2014 dated 13.10.2022 on the file of II Additional Sub Court,
Erode, the first defendant has preferred these revisions.
2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in OS.No.91 of 2014.
Originally, the plaintiff / the first respondent herein filed suit for specific
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 6
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
performance before the II Additional Sub Court, Erode. In that suit, the
revision petitioner herein is the first defendant. She filed her written statement
and the suit was posted for trial. PW1 evidence was recorded. Thereafter to
record the evidence of defendants, the matter was posted. DW1 filed proof
affidavit, but not appeared for cross examination. Thereafter, evidence was
closed. Now the case is posted for judgment. In the meanwhile, the first
defendant filed IA.Nos.5 and 6 of 2022 to reopen and recall this revision
petitioner and to adduce document on her side. The said applications were
dismissed by the trial judge by passing common order stating that in spite of
several opportunity given to her, she was not appeared before the court and
also not stated any valid reason why she was not able to appear before the
court. So on that ground, the petitions were dismissed. Challenging the said
findings, the first defendant has preferred these revisions.
3. Notice served and the counsel for the caveator also appeared.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that as
defendant, she is entitled to adduce evidence and she is also having sufficient
document to prove the same. But the trial judge failed to consider the same and
dismissed the petitions erroneously.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3 of 6
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the first respondent
submits that fair opportunity was given to the petitioner, but she was not
appeared before the court. When the matter was reserved for judgment, she
come forward with these applications and the trial judge rightly dismissed the
same.
6. But on considering both the submissions and perusal of records,
revealed that the plaintiff filed suit in the year 2014 for the relief of specific
performance and other reliefs. The first defendant contested the suit and the
evidence of PW1 was recorded. The matter was posted for evidence of DW1,
but she was not appeared in spite of several opportunity was given by the trial
court. Hence, evidence was closed. Now she filed application to reopen the
matter. So though there is delay on the side of the first defendant, but she is
inclined to adduce evidence. If she is not permitted, her right to defend the
case will be defeated. Furthermore, it is a case of specific performance, both
the parties have to prove their case independently. Therefore, in order to give
valid opportunity, this court is inclined to allow the applications.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4 of 6
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. However, on
seeing the conduct of the petitioner, the applications in IA.Nos.5 & 6 of 2022
are allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) ordered to
be paid to the Legal Services Authority, Erode within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the present revision
petitions shall stand automatically dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner is
directed to cooperate for the suit proceedings and the suit is ordered to be
disposed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
08.03.2023
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 6
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
lok
To
The II Additional Sub Court,
Erode
CRP.Nos.517 & 519 of 2023
08.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
