Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 21261 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 November, 2024
C.R.P(MD).No.2398 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.2398 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.11592 of 2022
Stalin @ Stalin Jayachandran ... Petitioner / Defendant
Vs
Sampoorna Aqua Agencies
represented by its Managing Partner,
B.Jayaraman ... Respondent / Plaintiff
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C.,
Constitution of India, to set aside fair and decreetal order dated
01.07.2022 made in I.A.No.320 of 2021 in O.S.No.107 of 2020 on teh
file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur by allowing this revision
petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Barathi
For Respondent : Mr.P.Vadivel
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD).No.2398 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside fair and decreetal
order dated 01.07.2022 made in I.A.No.320 of 2021 in O.S.No.107 of
2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
2. The facts in brief is that the suit in O.S.No.107 of 2020 was filed
by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner for recovery of a
sum of Rs.81,44,002.00 with subsequent cost and interest. The revision
petitioner did not receive notice / summon. Therefore, he failed to
appear before the trial Court and so an ex parte decree was passed
without verifying whether private notice was properly served upon him.
Setting out the above said fact, he filed an I.A.No.320 of 2021 to set
aside the ex parte decree dated 20.09.2021. That application was
dismissed by the trial Court on 01.07.2022 in I.A.No.320 of 2021.
Against which this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as stated in
the petition, without properly verifying the service of notice, an ex parte
decree was passed. He got valid defence to be made and so he must be
given opportunity. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
judgment reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1056 in the case of The
Koushik Mutually aided Cooperative Housing Society Vs Ameena
Begum and another, clarified the position that against the order passed
in Order 9 Rule 13 only an appeal will lie, since it is an appealable order,
no revision is entertainable.
4. In view of the above said clarification, now the revision is not
maintainable. Ofcourse, liberty is granted to the revision petitioner to
file proper appeal. At the time of filing the appeal, the time spent by the
petitioner in prosecuting this matter may be deleted as per Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, since a bonafide attempt has been made by the
petitioner in prosecuting the matter.
5. With this liberty, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands
closed.
07.11.2024 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No pnn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
pnn
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER IN
and
07.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!