LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-873

RAMASUBRAMANIAN Vs. SANKARANARAYANAN

Decided On January 25, 2019
Ramasubramanian Appellant
V/S
SANKARANARAYANAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dtd. 9/4/2009, passed in C.M.A. No. 3 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dtd. 22/9/2004, passed in I.A. No. 276 of 2004 in O.S. No. 78 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 78 of 2003. The petitioners had been set ex parte in the abovesaid suit on 16/10/2003 and seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them, the petitioners have come forward with an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The reason projected by the petitioners for setting aside the ex parte decree is that they had not been served with the summons in the suit and accordingly, they are not aware of the suit proceedings and hence, the ex parte decree passed against them, dtd. 16/10/2003, should be set aside. Further according to the petitioners, they had sold the subject matter to one Arumugam @ Arul and Madhavan on 7/4/2003 and learnt that the respondent / plaintiff had preferred a complaint with the Police against Arumugam @ Arul and in the enquiry conducted with reference to the abovesaid complaint, Arumugam @ Arul was informed about the ex parte decree obtained by the respondent / plaintiff by the Police on 11/1/2004 and thereafter, according to the petitioners, Arumugam @ Arul had informed the same to them on 19/1/2004 and only by way of the same, they came to know about the ex parte decree passed against them in the suit on 16/10/2003 and accordingly, had come forward with the application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them.

(3.) The abovesaid application of the petitioners had been resisted by the respondent contending that the case projected by the petitioners that they are not aware of the suit is false and the petitioners have been served with the summons in the suit and despite the same, the petitioners had refused to receive the summons sent from the Court deliberately and further, also contended that the petitioners had preferred a caveat petition against the respondents and accordingly, the respondent had also issued due notice to their counsel as regards the institution of the suit and the respondent had sent the summons only to the address given by the petitioners in the caveat petition with the name of their father as Ramasundaram as the petitioners had stated that the name of their father is only Ramasundaram in the caveat petition and therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed to seek for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against them in the suit on the footing that they had not been served with the summons and prayed for the dismissal of the application.