MEENAKSHISUNDARAM TEXTILES Vs. VALLIAMMAL TEXTILES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an ex parte judgment dated 8.7.2009 made in O.S. No. 16 of 2005, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur has ordered as follows:

(2.) The question arises in this civil miscellaneous appeal is as to whether the aforesaid judgment could be termed to be a "judgment" in terms of Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The following few facts are necessary for the disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal. The Respondent in this appeal is the Plaintiff and the Appellant is the Defendant in O.S. No. 16 of 2005 and they are referred to as the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this judgment. The Plaintiff instituted the said suit for the relief as has been stated in the above judgment of the Court below. The Defendant filed the written statement dated 16.8.2001. After filing the written statement, the Defendant did not appear and was absent. Issues were framed on 24.2.2005 and thereafter the evidence was recorded, perused and the judgment was rendered on 8.7.2009. A decree was also passed on the basis of that judgment. The Defendant filed I.A. No. 1776 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and for a consequential direction for hearing of the suit on merits. That application was resisted by the Plaintiff on various grounds. Subsequently, while that interlocutory application was pending, the Plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2346 of 2009 seeking for a direction to receive the additional counter affidavit. The I.A. No. 1776 of 2009 filed by the Defendant was taken up by the learned Judge and the same was dismissed by the order dated 26.8.2010. In order to dismiss the said application, the learned Judge found that though the issues were framed as early as on 24.2.2005 and the case was listed for trial from 24.3.2005 and that the cross examination of P.W.1 was posted from 3.4.2009, the Defendant did not cross examine P.W.1 in spite of several adjournments. The learned Judge also found that the Defendant did not give any explanation for its failure to cross examine P.W.1 for a long period and therefore the Defendant id not make out any grounds to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The said order is questioned in this civil miscellaneous appeal.