ARUN JOSEPH Vs. PACHIYAR SUGAR MILLS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the orders setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant in O.S.Nos.69 of 2012 and 31 of 2014.

(2.) The revision petitioners / plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.69 of 2012 for declaration that the two sale deeds, dated 25.10.2012, are null and void and the petitioners / plaintiffs are absolutely entitled to the schedule mentioned properties and for consequential injunction and the suit in O.S.No.31 of 2014 for permanent injunction. As the properties in both the suits are one and the same, both the suits were, subsequently, clubbed for joint trial. While the case was posted for cross examination of PW1, the counsel for the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant reported no instructions. However, the trial Court has proceed to hear the matter on merits and passed the decrees in favour of the petitioners / plaintiffs in both the suits on 24.03.2015. On 25.04.2015 ie., exactly on the expiry of one month, the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant in both the suits filed an application in I.A.Nos.87 and 88 of 2016 for setting aside the said ex parte decrees. The Court below has allowed both the applications on terms, in order to give one more opportunity to the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant. Aggrieved by that orders, the petitioners / plaintiffs have filed the above civil revision petitions.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners / plaintiffs would submit that the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant had not averred sufficient cause for their non-appearance and that as the Court below has decided the suits on merits, the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant ought to have filed appeals against the said judgments and decrees, and the interlocutory applications filed by the 1st respondent / 2nd defendant are not maintainable. But, the Court below has erroneously allowed the same on terms. Thus, he prayed to set aside the orders passed by the Court below.