Madras High Court
Ravi @ Abdul Raheem vs Fathima on 31 October, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14361 of 2023
Ravi @ Abdul Raheem ... Petitioner/
Petitioner/
1st respondent
Vs.
Fathima ... Respondent/
Respondent/
Appellant
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to direct the learned District Judge,
Ramanathapuram to number the IA in A.S.No.6 of 2022 pending on the
file of the District Court, Ramanathapuram and dispose of the same within
a stipulated time.
For Petitioner : M/s.J.Madhu
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of return
dated 09.09.2022 questioning the maintainability of the petition filed
under Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. as the judgment was delivered on merits
after setting the revision petitioner herein as ex parte.
2. It is seen from the written endorsement that the revision
petitioner, after receiving the notice, has not chosen to appear on the
hearing date and that the learned Appellate Judge, by setting him ex parte,
has proceeded to hear the appellant's side and passed the judgment dated
28.03.2022 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.37 of 2012 dated 26.10.2021. It is further seen that the
revision petitioner, who is the first respondent, has filed a petition under
Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C., (but actually Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C.) for setting
aside the ex parte order passed against him, but the learned Principal
District Judge has returned the petition on 27.04.2022 seeking correct date
of disposal and vakalath to be filed in A4 sheet. Subsequently, the papers
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
were resubmitted and again, the petition was returned and thereafter on
09.09.2022,the petition was returned, questioning the maintainability of
the petition.
3. Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. contemplates that where an appeal is
heard ex parte and judgment is pronounced against any of the respondent,
he may apply to the Appellate Court to re-hear the appeal and if he
satisfies the Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from
appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Court shall re-
hear the appeal on such terms. But, in the case on hand, as already pointed
out, since the revision petitioner has not turned up for the hearing fixed, he
was set ex parte and thereafter, judgment was pronounced. Hence, the
revision petitioner is having every right under Order 41 Rule 21 C.P.C. to
file a petition to re-hear the appeal, but the learned Principal District
Judge, without considering the provision, has returned the petition
mechanically. Considering the above, the learned Principal District Judge,
Ramanathapuram, is hereby directed to take the petition on file, if it is
otherwise in order and to proceed in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
4. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed
of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
31.10.2023
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
Note : Registry is directed to return the original
papers to the revision petitioner, after
getting necessary acknowledgments.
To
1. The Principal District Court,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.2759 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14361 of 2023
Dated : 31.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
