TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION KUMBAKONAM DIVISION IV LIMITED Vs. TIRUCHIRAPPALLI CONSUMER CO OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order of the Principal District Judge, Trichy, dated 22.09.2008, passed in C.M.A.No.5 of 2008, declining to interfere with the order passed by the II-Additional Sub-Judge, Trichy, dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 9, Rule 3 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against it in O.S.No.30 of 1998 on 13.12.2004. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the revision petitioner/1st defendant was running a canteen in its office premises at Trichy. THE 2nd defendant in the suit - THE Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, rep.by its Managing Director, Pudukkottai, is the head office of the 1st defendant. Goods like rice, vegetables, groceries, etc. were supplied by the respondent/plaintiff - Tiruchirappalli Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores (Chinthamani Super Market) Limited to the revision petitioner/1st defendant. THE 3rd defendant in the suit (who was also set ex-parte) was working in the 1st defendant office used to make purchases from the respondent/plaintiff, based on the intents prepared by the revision petitioner/1st defendant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the non-appearance of the petitioner/1st defendant was bona fide since the 1st defendant was under the impression that the 2nd respondent, who is the Managing Director in the Head Office, would take care of the case of the revision petitioner also. It was further submitted that the courts below ought to have seen that the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation is a Government undertaking and operated with the public money and while so the trial courts ought to have given an opportunity to the revision petitioner/1st defendant to defend its case, particularly when the Court has found that the 2nd respondent was not liable. It was further submitted that the revision petitioner/1st defendant has got substantial defence and therefore an opportunity should be given to the 1st defendant to put-forth its defence.