THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE v. LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P

C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.01.2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024and C.M.P.No.28735 of 2024D.Kamalanathan.. PetitionerVs1.Karunakaran2.C.Backiam3.Malliga.. RespondentsPRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 05.09.2024 made in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.195 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court at Dharapuram. For Petitioner: Mr.N.PalanikumarFor Respondents : Mr.M.VijayanO R D E R1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharapuram in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.195 of 2018, dated 05.09.2024.2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. O.S.No.195 of 2018 is a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Respondents 1 to 3 herein were arrayed as defendants 12 to 14 in the said suit. Despite being served with summons, the defendants did not come forth with the written statement. The learned Trial Judge, after waiting for nearly three years, had no other option than to decree the suit exparte on 23.03.2021. The defendants then filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to condone the delay in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on 30.06.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was preferred to this Court in C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023. The said revision was allowed on 12.09.2023. 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 20244. Just before filing an application to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte decree, defendants 12 to 14 filed a suit for partition inter se themselves in O.S.No.354 of 2021. On a request made by them, this suit was referred to Lok Adalat. They entered into a compromise before the Lok Adalat on 08.04.2022. Subsequently, they also registered a sale deed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dharapuram on 15.07.2022. 5. The successful plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 2018 was taken aback this sudden registration of the document. He was content with the finding in O.S.No.195 of 2018. He surprised that the defendants, who had suffered a decree, had managed to present a document for registration. On coming to know that defendants 12 to 14 have obtained a decree before the Lok Adalat, he presented W.P.No.28772 of 2022 challenging the award dated 08.04.2022 and the sale deed dated 15.07.2022. The said writ petition came to be allowed on 26.07.2023. It ripped open the Lok Adalat award dated 08.04.2022. This Court also declared the consequential sale deed, executed pursuant to the Lok Adalat award, as null and void. This Court directed the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021 to be restored on the file of the Subordinate Court at Dharapuram and directed the suit to be disposed of in accordance with the law. 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 20246. Now turning to the present suit, the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree, having been condoned by this Court in C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023, the learned Subordinate Judge took up the application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowed the application on 05.09.2024. Hence, this revision. 7. I heard Mr.N.Palanikumar for the civil revision petitioner. I requested Mr.N.Palanikumar to serve the entire papers on Mr.M.Vijayan who represented the contesting respondents in W.P.No.28772 of 2022 and the petitioners in C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023. Mr.N.Palanikumar served the papers on Mr.M.Vijayan. I heard both the counsels today. 8. Mr.N.Palanikumar invited my attention to the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023 and pointed out that an observation made by this Court that the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharapuram should take note of the Lok Adalat award in O.S.No.354 of 2021. He pointed out that at least two months earlier to the order of this Court in W.P.No.28772 of 2022, the said Lok Adalat award had been set aside and that this factum had not been brought to the notice of the learned Judge at 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024the time of disposal of C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023. 9. Per contra, Mr.M.Vijayan pleads that defendants 12 to 14 are purchasers of the property, earlier in point of time, from the predecessor in title of the civil revision petitioner. He states that after title had been transferred in favour of his clients, his vendor had surreptitiously executed a settlement deed in favour of her husband, who in turn sold the property to the civil revision petitioner/plaintiff. He urges that both the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2018 and O.S.No.354 of 2021 are pending before the same Court and hence, a joint trial may be ordered. 10. I have considered the submissions of Mr.N.Palanikumar and Mr.Vijayan. I have carefully perused the entire records. 11. The narration of the fact shows that the civil revision petitioner was the first of the block in presenting a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. He had been cautious enough to implead all those who projected a claim over the property. Unfortunately, defendants 12 to 14, when they presented O.S.No.354 of 2021, had not impleaded the civil revision petitioner as a party to the proceedings. Despite being 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024aware of the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.195 of 2018, they proceeded further with the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021 and obtained a Lok Adalat award on 08.04.2022. 12. Fortunately, this Court intervened in writ proceedings and re-opened the decree. On account of the order passed in C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023, dated 12.09.2023 as well as by virtue of the order impugned in this revision, the decree in O.S.No.195 of 2018 also stands re-opened. Therefore, both the parties today are called upon to prove their respective title. 13. If I were to concede to the plea of Mr.M.Vijayan, then it would lead to embarrassment of the trial. This is because, on one hand, the civil revision petitioner/plaintiff had impleaded all the parties who he felt might throw a cloud over his title in O.S.No.195 of 2018. But Mr.M.Vijayan's clients have taken easy route out and have not impleaded Mr.N.Palanikumar's client as a party to the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021. If joint trial is to be ordered, then Mr.N.Palanikumar's client, who is not party to the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021, would be constrained to move an application to implead and thereafter, contest the suit. This would be 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024wholly unnecessary and would lead only to delay. Therefore, the submission of Mr.M.Vijayan, as regards joint trial of both the suits, is rejected.14. I would look at the proceedings in an other angle. If O.S.No.195 of 2018 is decreed, automatically the suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021 would stand dismissed. This is because, unless and until the plaintiffs in O.S.No.354 of 2021 are the owners of the property, they will not be entitled to partition the property amongst themselves. In addition, as pointed out by both sides' counsel, the pleadings in O.S.No.195 of 2018 is complete. Therefore, I am of the view that if O.S.No.354 of 2021 is stayed pending disposal of O.S.No.195 of 2018, it would serve ends of justice. This is because the sale deed that had been executed by the respondents herein had already been set aside by this Court in the writ proceeding. This leaves it open to both the parties to prove their respective title in O.S.No.195 of 2018. 15. The scope of the revision is the correctness of the order passed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. In such a proceeding, the party must 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024show that “sufficient cause” is made out to set aside the exparte decree. This Court, having found that the defendants have shown such sufficient cause in C.R.P.No.3329 of 2023, there is not much was left for the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharapuram to find otherwise. 16.In addition, the learned Judge has felt that being a suit for title, it is better that the parties get a contested decree. Being a discretionary order, the scope of interference in this revision is also limited. 17. In the light of the above discussions, I pass the following directions:(i) The order setting aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in O.S.No.195 of 2018, dated 05.09.2024 is sustained;(ii) The suit in O.S.No.354 of 2021 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharapuram shall remain stayed pending disposal of the suit in O.S.No.195 of 2018, on the file of the very same Court. (iii) Since pleadings are complete and as the suit is more than five years old, the learned Subordinate Judge at Dharapuram at Tiruppur District shall expedite the hearing in O.S.No.195 of 2018 and ensure that the suit is disposed of within a period of nine months from the date of 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The learned Subordinate Judge is requested to remember that the parties have already litigated thrice before this Court. In case, any party attempts to drag on the proceedings, he is given absolute discretion to ensure such tactics are nipped at the bud. He shall proceed with all the expedition that is required to dispose of the suit within the time limit prescribed by this Court. 18. The civil revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.01.2025Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/NokjV. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.Kj9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024ToThe Subordinate Judge at Dharapuram, Tiruppur District. C.R.P.(PD)No.5120 of 2024and C.M.P.No.28735 of 202420.01.202510/10