SHANTHI Vs. D VENKATARAMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.356 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur.

(2.) THE 1st respondent herein filed the above suit for injunction and in that suit the revision petitioners filed the statement and on the side of the plaintiff/ 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 by filing proof affidavit and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. THEreafter, the defendants/ revision petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein did not appear and after giving an opportunity to the defendants the learned District Munsif, Ambattur passed the Judgement on 11.11.2010, decreeing the suit as prayed for. THEreafter, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.1613 of 2010 to recall PW1 and that petition was dismissed as not maintainable as the suit was decreed on 11.11.2010. Against the Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No.356 of 2006 dated 11.11.2010, this revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) FURTHER, it is seen from the "A" Diary Extract as found in the typedset of papers that the suit was listed for trial on 1.10.2010 and there was no representation and it was adjourned to 4.10.2010. On 4.10.2010 it was adjourned to 6.10.2010 and even on 6.10.2010 there was no representation and thereafter the case was adjourned to 18.10.2010 and finally adjourned to 22.10.2010. On 22.10.2010 the plaintiff filed proof affidavit and marked as Exs.A1 to A12 and the case was adjourned to 30.10.2010 for cross-examination of the plaintiff. On 30.10.2010 the District Munsif was on Casual Leave and on 3.11.2010 the plaintiff was present and the defendants were called absent and there was no representation for the defendants and the plaintiff's side was closed and the case was adjourned to 8.11.2010 for examination of defendants' side witnesses. The case was adjourned to 9.11.2010, 10.11.2010 and thereafter on 11.11.2010 and finally th case was adjourned to 15.11.2010 and on that date also there was no representation for the defendants and after hearing the arguments the case was adjourned to 16.11.2010 for Judgment. But Judgement was delivered on 11.11.2010. FURTHER, it is seen from the Judgement of the trial Court that the learned District Munsif extracted the proof affidavit filed by the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for on the basis of the documents and proof affidavit filed by the plaintiff and there is no evaluation of evidence. In similar circumstances,the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Order 17 Rule 2 and 3 C.P.C., in the Judgement reported in 2003 (3) Law Weekly, Page 489 (B.Janaki Ramiah Chetty Vs. A.K.Parthasarathy and others) held that when the case is adjourned for the examination of defendants' witnesses and defendants failed to appear and examine the witnesses, the only course open to the Court is to set them exparte and pass exparte decree and even assuming that the Judgement is passed on merits it can be construed only as an exparte decree and not as a decree on merits. Therefore, in my opinion, the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Ambattur in O.S.No.356 of 2006 on 11.11.2010 can only be construed as an exparte decree and it cannot be construed as a Judgement on merits.