The civil revision petitioners/petitioners/D.1 to D.4 have filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 22/10/2008 in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 passed by the learned Sub-Jude, Tenkasi in confirming the order dated 17/10/2006 passed in I.A.No.1273 of 2006 in O.S. No. 392 of 2004 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.
2. The First Appellate Court while passing orders in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 on 22/10/2008 has inter alia observed that the revision petitioners/appellants have already set themselves ex parte for two times and that for the third time, as against the revision petitioners, an ex parte order has been passed and to set aside the same, an application has been filed and that the appeal is not to be allowed in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association case and consequently, dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1273 of 2006.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submit that the Courts below have not adopted a liberal approach when the revision petitioners have filed their written statement already and the matter has been listed for trial and further, that both the Courts have not taken note of the fact that each case will have to be decided on merits of the matter and there cannot be a rigid rule in this regard in exercising the power of discretion in regard to the matter of setting aside the ex parte decree and in fact, the suit claim itself is not maintainable since the revision petitioners/defendants have received only consideration for the land sold and not for the excess and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.
4. It is to be noted that the main suit in the present case has been filed on 30/10/2003 on the file of the learned Principal Judge and later has been transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif, Tenkasi and taken on file as O.S.No.392 of 2004 and when the matter has been posted for filing for written statement at that time, the written statement has not been filed and therefore, an ex parte order was passed and later to set aside the ex parte order, an application has been filed which has been allowed later and finally, the case has been posted for enquiry on 19/7/2004 and the respondent/plaintiff has been examined and on 21/7/2004, the matter has been posted for cross- examination and documents have been marked and later, the case has been adjourned to 21/7/2004 in view of the fact that the Officer has been on leave on 23/7/2004 and again for the purpose of cross-examination, the matter has been adjourned to 29/7/2004 and once again adjourned to 31/7/2004 for cross- examination and on 3/8/2004, when the matter has been posted for cross- examination, the matter has been passed over at the instance of the revision petitioners/appellants and on 3/8/2004, when the matter has been called after lunch recess, the revision petitioners have not appeared and they have been set ex parte. From the above factual details, it is quite evident that the revision petitioners/appellants/petitioners have been given adequate opportunities of five days to cross-examine the respondent/plaintiff and they have not availed the same and suffice it for this Court to point out those opportunities have remained otiose.
5. It is the further contention of the revision petitioners that a liberal view has to be taken in regard to setting aside the ex parte decree/ex parte orders in a Court of law and a pedantic approach need not be adopted.
6. Generally speaking in matters regarding setting aside the ex parte decree/ex parte order applications, a Court of law can take a liberal view. In short, a Court of law may not harp on technicalities overriding the cause of substantial justice being delivered to the parties. The term 'sufficient cause' though will have to be normally viewed in a liberal fashion yet on the present facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioners/appellants/petitioners have been given five times adequate opportunities of cross-examining the respondent/plaintiff and they have not availed of the same. It is needless to say that earlier an application has been filed to set aside the ex parte order and that has been set aside by the trial Court. When once again the main suit has been posted for cross- examination, the appellants/revision petitioners on 3/8/2004 have made a request to the concerned Court to pass over the matter and after lunch recess, when the matter has been taken up again by the Court, then at that time also, the respondents have not appeared and hence, they were set ex parte. Therefore, the conduct of the revision petitioners/appellants/petitioners clearly points out to the fact that they are guilty of latches and not diligent enough in conducting the proceedings before the trial Court.
7. When the petitioners have known the proceedings of the trial Court and when they have adequate knowledge of the progress of the case before the trial Court, then they cannot adopt a lackadaisical or laissez-faire attitude in the considered opinion of this Court.
8. In the light of the detailed discussions mentioned supra and looking at from any point of view, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the First Appellate Authority in dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2007 and thereby confirming the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1272 of 2006 does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law and resultantly, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the First Appellate Authority in C.M.A.No.1 of 2007 is affirmed by the reasons assigned in this revision.
mvs.
To
1. The Sub-Court, Tenkasi
2. The Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi.
3. The D.R.(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, - to watch and report