Allowed

Vedamuthu, v. P.L. Palaniyappan

Madras HC6 Jun 2023CRP(MD)/492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition on terms, directing the petitioner to pay costs to revive the application to set aside the ex parte decree and order expedite merits trial.

What did the court decide?

Allowed Civil Revision Petition; petitioner directed to pay Rs.5,000 cost to respondents; upon payment, impugned order set aside and application to set aside ex parte decree allowed.

Vedamuthu, Vs P.L. Palaniyappan — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD)No.2159 of 2023

¶7

Vedamuthu ...Petitioner/Petitioner/ 5th Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.P.L.Palaniyappan

¶10

2.S.Palaniyappan ...Respondents 1 & 2/ Respondents 1 & 2/ Plaintiffs 1 & 2

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.02.2021 made in I.A.No.541 of 2018 in O.S.No.323 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Angusamy

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

¶14

1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 23.02.2021 made in I.A.No.541 of 2018 in O.S.No.323 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai.

¶18

The petitioner is the fifth defendant in O.S.No.323 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai filed by the respondents. The respondents herein claim that the property in question, which was subject matter of the suit is an ancesteral property, which was gifted by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4, who in turn sold the property to the fifth defendant. In the suit, the petitioner has filed a written statement and thereafter, set ex parte on 27.02.2017 and an ex parte order came to be passed.

¶19

Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.No.541 of 2018 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai to condone the delay of 356 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree

¶20

2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶22

dated 27.02.2017. The Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai has

¶23

dismissed the application with the following observations:

¶24

" 4.gpurridf; fhd j; hP T:;

¶25

mry; tof;fhdJ gpujpthjpfSf;F vjpuhf chpik tpsk;gy; kw;Wk; epue;ju jilahiz ghpfhuk; Nfhhp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L ,e;j kDjhuUf;F fle;j 27.02.2017-k; Njjp xUjiygl;r jPh;g;G Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. Nkw;gba xUjiygl;r jPh;g;ig uj;J nra;a kD jhf;fy; nra;tjpy; Vw;gl;l 356 ehl;fs; fhyjhkjj;ij kd;dpf;f Nfhhp ,e;j kDit kDjhuh; jhf;fy; nra;Js;shh;. mjw;F tof;F tprhuizf;F tha;jh Vw;gl;bUe;j Neuj;jpy; jhd; ntspA+hpy; ,Ue;Njd; vd;W kDjhuhy; fhuzk; $wg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk; mjd; gpd;G cly;epiy rhpapy;yhky; rpfpr;irapy; ,Ue;jjhfTk; $wpAs;shh;. Nkw;gba fhuzj;ij vjph;kDjhuh;fs; Ml;Nrgpj;Js;sdh;. xt;nthU ehs; fhyjhkjj;jpw;Fk; ePjpkd;wk; Vw;Wf;nfhs;Sk; tifapy; chpa fhuzk; njhptpf;fg;glNtz;Lk;. vjph;kDjhuh; $WtJ Nghy; 356 ehl;fs; fhyjhkjk; vd;gJ mjpfg;gbahdjhFk;. kDjhuhpd; cly;epiy Fwpj;J ve;j Mtzq;fSk; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy. vd;d khjphpahd gpur;rid kDjhuUf;F Vw;gl;lJ vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk; njspthf kDtpy; nrhy;ytpy;iy. vg;NghJ cly;eyk; Njwp tof;fwpQiu re;jpj;J tof;fpd; tptuk; Fwpj;J njhpe;Jnfhz;lhh; vd;gJ gw;wpAk; vJTk; njhptpf;ftpy;iy.

¶26

,Wjpahf ,k;kD js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;L cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. nryTj; njhif ,y;iy.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was

¶28

listed for sometime in the year 2017. However, the petitioner was not unwell and could not file an application to set aside the ex parte decree

¶29

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶31

earlier and there was a delay of 356 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. It is submitted that the petitioner has fair case on merits and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the case may be decided on merits as admittedly, the petitioner had filed a written statement contesting the suit claim.

¶32

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit has been decreed and nothing further survives for adjudication. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶34

Although the petitioner has not clearly explained the reasons by giving particulars of each days and the reasons given in the affidavit are general in nature and not specific, nevertheless, the fact remains that the petitioner has come back to the Court to set aside the ex parte decree dated 27.02.2017. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the suit schedule property purportedly on the strength of the sale deed executed by the defendant 3 and 4 in the suit.

¶35

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondents intervenes and confirms

¶38

that the execution proceedings has been initiated pursuant to the ex parte decree dated 27.02.2017.

¶39

Considering the above, this Court is inclined to allow the present Civil Revision petition on terms. The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the respondents herein within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such payment being made and production of proof before the Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai, I.A.No.541 of 2018 shall stand allowed. Consequently, all further proceedings will be subject to further trial and final arguments in O.S.No.323 of 2010.

¶40

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2010, the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai shall endeavour to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.323 of 2010 on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 12

¶41

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶43

months thereafter.

¶44

However, it is made clear that, in case, the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid cost of Rs.5,000/- within the stipulated period, the concession given in this order shall stand vacated sine die.

¶45

The present Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶46

06.06.2023

¶47

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶48

¶49

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai

¶50

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶51

6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶53

C.SARAVANAN,J.

¶54

¶55

C.R.P(MD)No.492 of 2022

¶56

06.06.2023

¶57

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Vedamuthu, v. P.L. Palaniyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedamuthu, v. P.L. Palaniyappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Praveen Kumar, Vs N. Abarna

K. Maheswari Vs K. Prabhu

S. Aishwarya Vs Harishkumar

K. Palaniammal, Vs Shri Eshan Capital

B. Banurekha, Vs T. Senthil

Muthusamy, Vs Rajagenkeshkumar