VARADARAJAN Vs. GOVINDASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above matter has come up before me upon an office note for orders as to maintainability of the Civil revision petition.

(2.) THE suit O.S. No. 912 of 1970 was filed for declaration of the plaintiff's four -ninths share in the suit well and for restraining the defendants by means of a permanent injunction from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs to take water from the well through a channel LMN marked in the plaint sketch, passing through the land of the defendants to the first plaintiff's land, and through the LMN channel to the land of the second plaintiff. On the defendants entering appearance and filing their written statement, issues were framed by the trial Court. When the suit came up for trial on 7th February, 1972 the defendants, when called were absent, and they were set ex parte; their counsel also reporting no instructions On the first plaintiff proving the claim by examining himself as P.W. 1, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs as prayed for.

(3.) THIRU T.V. Subramaniam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, citing, Section 115, C.P.C., argued that an appeal will not directly lie to the High Court from the judgment and decree in O S. No. 912 of 1970 and as such the revision is maintainable. Section 115, C.P.C. reads: