Madras High Court
R.Jegannathan vs P.G.Sharanya Priyadharshini on 5 November, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.254 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.254 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.1227 of 2024
R.Jegannathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. P.G.Sharanya Priyadharshini
2. K.Sri Ramulu
3. A.Suburathinammal
4. State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (S.A.R.AB),
Red Cross Building, No. 32, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
5. Rajendran
6. Gopi
7. A.R.Apsar
8. The Sub Registrar,
Arani
9. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur. ... Respondents
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.254 of 2024
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 24.11.2023 passed in
E.A. No. 1 of 2023 in E.P. No. 7 of 2021 in O.S.No. 52 of 2017 on the file
of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Venkataramana
For Respondents : Dr. S.Surya,
Additional Government Pleader
(for R8 & R9)
Mr. C.Shankar (for R1)
No such person (R5 & R7)
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal
order dated 24.11.2023, passed in E.A. No. 1 of 2023 in E.P. No. 7 of 2021
in O.S. No. 52 of 2017, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,
Thiruvallur.
2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The suit in O.S.No. 52 of
2017, was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner and
respondents 5 to 9 for delivery of vacant possession. According to the
petitioner, he did not receive any summons from the Trial Court in the above
suit. However, the petitioner's tenants received the summons and informed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him.
2.2. The petitioner engaged Advocate Raj Vigneswar to conduct the
case and gave him a vakalatnama in his favour. However, despite several
requests made by the petitioner's advocate, he was not informed properly.
Instead, his advocate informed him that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the
Courts were not functioning. Therefore, the petitioner believed his counsel's
words blindly, without any hesitation.
2.3. The petitioner received another notice from the Trial Court and
handed it over to his counsel. However, on 24.02.2022, he came to know
that some persons, accompanied by the decree holder, visited the suit
property and instructed the petitioner's tenants to vacate. Subsequently, the
petitioner engaged the present counsel and discovered that he had been set
ex-parte in O.S. No. 52 of 2017 for non-filing of the written statement on
20.12.2017 and he had been set ex-parte in E.P. No. 7 of 2021 on
11.02.2022 for non-filing of the counter. Consequently, the petitioner filed
an application before the Trial Court to stay all further proceedings in E.P.
No. 7 of 2021. However, the trial Court dismissed this application.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present Civil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Revision Petition.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the first respondent's father, Govindan Kutty Menon, was the power agent of
the second respondent. He was very much aware of the pending loan with
the fourth respondent; however, this fact was suppressed. Consequently, the
property was sold to the third respondent on 10.09.2008. The petitioner, a
bonafide purchaser, purchased the property from the third respondent.
However, the fourth respondent brought the property to sale, and Govindan
Kutty Menon's daughter purchased it at the auction conducted by the fourth
respondent. According to the petitioner, the first respondent's initial action
regarding the property was fraudulent. Furthermore, the petitioner has
already filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree in O.S. No. 52 of
2017. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to stay all further proceedings in E.P.
No. 7 of 2021.
4. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner engaged an
Advocate to defend the suit in O.S. No. 52 of 2017. However, having
engaged counsel, the petitioner did not pursue the matter properly. Very
conveniently, the petitioner's new counsel is now blaming the previous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counsel, which has become a routine practice among litigants to obtain
orders from the Court. After five years of the ex-parte decree, the petitioner
has come up with the story that the previous counsel has not informed him
about the case. However, not only was the summons in the suit served on
the petitioner, but also the execution petition. The petitioner has filed an
affidavit and was aware of the proceedings pending for eviction. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings
and that orders were passed behind his back.
5. At any event, now, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A. No.
2 of 2023 to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of 1083 days, which
is pending. It is for the petitioner to pursue that application as per law. Even
if he succeeds in the application, the Trial Court will take a decision on its
own merits. In such a view of the matter, at this stage, the impugned order
does not require any interference, as it lacks merits.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the
Trial Court may dispose of the application filed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 to set
aside the exparte decree as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of two months. It is to be noted that the notice required only against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the owners and mortgagee and not for every tenants. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
05.11.2024
kv
To
1. The State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (S.A.R.AB),
Red Cross Building, No. 32, Montieth Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Arani
3. The District Collector,
Tiruvallur.
4. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Kv
05.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
