P. CHANDRAN Vs. N. MURUGANANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. Mr. C. Sankar Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent agreed that the appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself without even calling for the records as one of the grounds on which the Appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court has been challenged is regarding the procedure adopted by the trial Court when the appellant/defendant did not appear for letting evidence on his side. The substantial questions of law thus projected are "(1) Whether the trial Court was wrong in proceeding in pronouncing a judgment on merits considering the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff alone, when no witness was examined and no document was produced on the side of the defendant and there was no representation for the defendant when the matter stood listed for the defendant to adduce his evidence? (2) Whether the lower Appellate Court has failed to consider the said aspect while confirming the decree of the trial Court?

(2.) The submissions made on both sides regarding the above said substantial questions of law are heard and the judgments of the Courts below, besides the other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers, are also taken for consideration. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No. 59 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil. The respondent herein is admittedly the owner of the suit property which is the shop in respect of which the appellant/defendant is tenant. On the basis of the contention of the respondent herein that the lease came to be terminated, that the appellant was in arrears of rent and that the respondent needed the property for her own occupation, the suit came to be filed for recovery of possession. Though the future mesne profits was mistakenly claimed it can be taken as a claim for damages for use and occupation.

(3.) The appellant herein/defendant, who participated in the trial till the conclusion of the evidence on the plaintiff failed to avail the opportunity given by the trial Court to adduce evidence on his side. The trial Court, after giving a number of chances by adjourning the matter for production of the witness on the side of the appellant herein/defendant, finally, chose to close the evidence on the side of the appellant herein/defendant, without a single document being marked on his side and without a single witness being examined on his side that too, on the date when the defendant and his counsel were not present. The learned trial Judge could have very well proceeded with the suit as contemplated under Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C. by proceeding under any of the provisions under Order 9. On the other hand, the learned trial Judge chose to hold that the evidence adduced on the side of the defendant was sufficient to pronounce a judgment on merits, and thus delivered a judgment, based on which the decree was granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff as prayed for.