MUNEESWARI Vs. VANMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar in returning the petitions filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC to restore the suit with regard to the dismissal of the suit and under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the decree passed by the trial Court on the counter claim made by the respondent/defendant, questioning the maintainability of those applications. The petitioner has challenged the rejection of those petitions without even numbering them by the trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions, are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the above said suit against the respondent herein for declaration that the sale deed dated 26.2.2000 executed in his favour as invalid as it was obtained under undue influence and by playing fraud and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property. The respondent has contested the suit by filing a written statement and also a counter claim was filed by him seeking recovery of possession of the suit property.

(3.) It transpires from the order passed by the Court below dated 10.7.2002 that though the plaintiff represented through his counsel on the previous hearing and on 3.7.2002, but failed to appear either in person or through his counsel on 10.7.2002 and therefore, the Court below on the basis of the pleadings filed by both the parties, framed issues, examined the defendant as DW.1 and marked documents on the side of the defendant as Exhibit B1 to B5 and dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim and accordingly, directed the plaintiff to hand over possession of the suit property within two months and relegated the determination of mes ne profits to a separate proceedings under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.