A single-judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan was approached with a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution against an exparte judgment and decree passed by the trial court against the petitioner.
The court reiterated that the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the exparte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in view of a specific remedy of appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was the third party to the suit filed by the first respondent as against respondents 2 to 6 herein for specific performance on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 29.01.1993. Respondents 2 to 6 failed to appear before the trial court and as such, they were set exparte. Hence, the suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2005 as prayed for. The petitioner being the third party to the suit, challenged the judgment and decree and the present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents submitted that the civil revision petition is not at all maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. They further added that though the petitioner is not the party to the suit proceedings, it cannot challenge the judgment and decree under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when there is a specific remedy available under Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner can very well avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate court as against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.
Challenging the judgment and decree, an appeal can be filed by any aggrieved person over the trial court judgment and decree. They further submitted that the defendants in the said suit i.e. the respondents 2 to 6 herein, on receipt of the suit summons, failed to appear before the trial court and did not even file a written statement. Therefore, there is no question of framing issues and points for consideration. On perusal of the plaint and the documents produced before the trial court, the trial court rightly decreed the suit as prayed for. Therefore, it is very much in consonance with the procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issue before the Court:
Whether a civil revision petition can be entertained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the exparte judgment and decree passed by the trial court?
Observations of the Court:
The court placed special emphasis on the fact that the petitioner did not choose to file any appeal challenging the judgment and decree by the separate suit. Instead of filing an appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.10 of 2004, the petitioner came forward with the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed in OS.No.10 of 2004.
The judge relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohamed Ali Vs. V. Jaya and Others reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477, which held that the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the exparte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court in view of a specific remedy of appeal as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself. Thus, the judge concluded that the exparte judgment and decree attained finality.
The original defendants in the suit also filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree and judgment with condone delay petition and the same was dismissed and confirmed by this Court. Even otherwise, a remedy against the exparte judgment and decree available to the defendants is to prefer an appeal before the first appellate court.
As against the judgment and decree, the court did acknowledge that any aggrieved person can prefer an appeal suit but once there is a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available to the aggrieved party, civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Therefore, this civil revision petition was held to be not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Decision of the Court:
This civil revision petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal against the judgment and decree in the manner known to law within a period of two weeks from that day. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Title: Pace Builders (M) Pvt. Ltd. vs T. Suyamburaj and others
Coram: Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Case No.: CRP.No.1034 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. T. Mohan
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. V. Raghavachari (For R1)
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
