RAMASAMY Vs. SIVABAKIYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against an order of the Trial Court, returning a petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C., as not maintainable, since the judgment in the suit was pronounced, invoking Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Considering the fact that the order challenged is one, returning an application without numbering, notice to the respondents is deemed unnecessary.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3 filed a suit in OS.No.1 of 2011, seeking declaration of their title of the suit properties, recovery of possession, injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties, declaration that the 1st defendant is not the grand son (son's son) of Karuppayammal, for measuring the suit properties and to fix the boundaries, for refund of the compensation that has been received by the 1st defendant and for other reliefs.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement. PW1 was examined in chief. The defendants did not choose to cross-examine. The learned Trial Judge, decreed the suit on 23/12/2016. While decreeing the suit, the learned Trial Judge made a statement that the suit is decreed under Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Soon thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner, seeking to set aside the decree treating it as an exparte decree on 20/1/2017. The said application was returned with an endorsement that it is not maintainable, since the judgment was passed under Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Though the same was attempted to be represented, the learned Additional District Judge, by endorsement dtd. 10/12/2019 returned it again, stating that previous return has not been complied with. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal against a decree with an petition for condonation of delay, which came to be dismissed by this Court.