MUTHULAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. M D VENKATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order in R. E. ANo. 430 of 1985 in R. E. P. No. 161 of 1983 in O. S. No. 66 of 1980 on the file of Sub Court, tirupathur.

(2.) SHORT facts are: The revision petitioner had obtained money decree against the respondents in O. S. No. 66 of 1980 on the file of sub-Court, Tirupathur. She had laid execution in R. E. P. No. 161 of 1983 before the District Munsif Court , gudiyatham. While so, the respondents had filed R. E. A. No. 430 of 1985 under sec. 47, Civil Procedure Code and Act 13 of 1980 and 50 of 1982, praying to declare that the entire decree debt in R. E. P. No. 161 of 1983 in Tirupathur Sub Court , O. S. No. 66 of 1980 as fully discharged. The petitioner had opposed that claim and had filed a detailed counter. While so, on 21. 1. 1986, the first petitioner had appeared in person and second petitioner was not present. The respondent was not present. Both counsels were absent. The learned district Munsif had set the respondent ex parte and allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent has come forward with this revision petition.

(3.) THE tacts of the above referred case vary totally from the facts of this case. This is a case where there was simply no evidence but yet the petition was allowed. Such an order cannot at all be sustained. When such a perverse order has been passed, the respondents cannot take umbrage under any technical plea.