MARUTHAI Vs. MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in all the civil revision petitioner is the tenant. THE respondent Manickam filed eviction proceedings in P.No.10 of 1993 before the Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirapalli against the petitioner as well as one Sanasi for arrears of rent for the period from 1982 to 1991. On 2.11.1993 an ex parte order was passed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,392 within 30 days. Since the petitioner did not comply with the said direction, eviction was ordered. THE landlord filed E.P.No.31 of 1994 for evicting the respondents therein. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a counter, contending that no summons were served on the petitioner in P.No.10 of 1993 and the order was also not communicated to him. Hence, he was not aware of the eviction proceedings before the Revenue Court. However, the petitioner filed M.P.No.55 of 1994 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 2.11.1993. M.P.No.53 of 1994 has been filed by the petitioner for the stay of E.P.No.31 of 1994 and M.P.No.54 of 1994 for condoning the delay of 271 days in seeking to set aside the ex parte order. THE Revenue Court, by order dated 30.8.1994 dismissed M.P.No.53 to 55 of 1994 and ordered E.P.No.31 of 1994. THEreafter, he filed copy application for the certified copy of the order in P.No.10 of 1993 and filed the revision in C.R.P.No.3466 of 1997. THE Revenue Court has dismissed the petitions on the ground that the petitioner had refused to receive the summons and the other respondent Sanasi failed to appear before the Revenue Court in spite of the notice in P.No. 10 of 1993.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the endorsement made by the clerk in the Revenue Court reveals that the petitioner had refused to receive the summons but the summons have not been affixed as required under the procedure. Further the clerk, who had made the said endorsement stating that the petitioner refused to receive the summons, has not been examined by the Revenue Court to prove the same. Moreover, the order of the Revenue Court ought to have been served on the petitioner. Since the order has not been communicated, the petitioner has filed the petition for setting aside the ex parte order within 30 days from the date of knowledge. Only by way of abundant caution, the petition under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. The Revenue Court is not correct in dismissing the petitions merely on the ground that the petitioner has refused to receive the summons.

(3.) THE Revenue Court is not correct in dismissing the petitions on the only ground that the petitioner refused to receive the summons P.No.10 of 1993. Consequently. C.R.P.No.3037 of 1994 and C.R.P.No.3466 of 1997 are allowed and M.P.No.54 of 1994 is ordered and P. No. 10 of 1993 is restored to file. THE Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Tiruchirappalli is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, C.R.P.Nos.3036 and 3038 of 1994 are also allowed. No costs.