The civil revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 20.08.2008 in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, in directing the revision petitioner/ defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) p.m from the date of the suit i.e, on 14.06.2004 till 20.08.2008 and the same amount has been directed to be paid on or before 04.09.2008, failing which the petition will stand dismissed and the matter has been directed to be called on 05.09.2008.
2. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004, the revision petitioner/petitioner/defendant has preferred this civil revision petition.
3. The revision petitioner appearing in person, submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the fact that the suit has been filed by the respondent/wife claiming permanent alimony from him, but not the interim maintenance which has already been deposited into the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai, on 24.03.2003 under Lok Adalat proceedings in fixed lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) and the I.A.No.26 of 2002 has been closed in that effect and therefore, the conditional order passed in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 directing the petitioner to make a deposit of interim maintenance for the second time is violating the settled principles of law and the same is not a legal one and further, on 05.06.2007, he has not appeared before the trial Court for the purpose of cross-examining the respondent/wife and that he has left for Chennai on 04.06.2007 where he approached the Directorate of Legal Study on 05.06.2007 in connection to his elder son's education regarding the re- do case in 8th Semester of B.L course and therefore, his absence on 05.06.2007 is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to bonafide circumstances and in any event, the order passed by the trial Court suffers from serious infirmities of law and therefore, to prevent miscarriage of justice, the same has to be set aside by this Court.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the respondent/wife has filed a case claiming maintenance against the petitioner/ defendant and that the petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court with a view not to pay the maintenance to the respondent/wife and that even on 13.03.2006, the petitioner has not appeared in the case and that on 13.03.2006, an ex-parte decree has been passed against the petitioner and the present application has been projected by the revision petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree for the second time and therefore, in order to procrastinate the legal proceedings, the petitioner/ defendant has projected the present I.A.No.1431 of 2007 and that a particular amount to be fixed by the Court may be directed to be paid by the petitioner/defendant from the date of filing of the suit till the passing of the orders in I.A.No.1431 of 2007.
5. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004, indicates that the respondent/wife has claimed maintenance of a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) p.m and while allowing the petition, the trial Court has opined that the petitioner may be directed to deposit at the rate of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) p.m from the date of the suit till the passing of orders on 20.08.2008 and accordingly, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) p.m from the date of filing of the suit i.e, on 14.06.2004 till 20.08.2008 and the same has been directed to be paid on or before 04.09.2008 failing which it is further ordered that the petition will stand dismissed and the same is directed to be called on 05.09.2008.
6. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the revision petitioner/defendant has not complied with the conditional order passed in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 dated 20.08.2008 by the trial Court and resultantly, the said I.A.No.1431 of 2007 has been dismissed on 05.09.2008.
7. In regard to the consideration of setting aside the ex-parte decree/order applications filed by the parties, it is essential for the Court to take a liberal view and a Court shall not take a pedantic approach while dealing with the same.
8. By allowing a party/litigant to take part in the main stream of proceedings of a particular case, a meritorious matter cannot be thrown out at the initial stage. If such applications are allowed by taking note of the facts and circumstances of each and every case with an humane approach by the Courts of law, then the cause of substantial justice will override the technical considerations for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay and then, the judiciary will be respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice, but capable of removing injustice being done. Added further, there is no assumption that non- appearance of a particular party has occasioned deliberately on account of his malafides or on account of palpable negligence etc. As a matter of fact, a litigant does not stand to benefit by not attending the hearing of a case before the Court of law.
9. Be that as it may, on a perusal of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1431 of 2007, suffice it for this Court to point out that any application like the present one in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the ex-parte decree, such a onerous condition of directing the petitioner/defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) p.m from the date of the suit i.e on 14.06.2004 till 20.08.2008 and the same being ordered to be paid on or before 04.09.2008, etc., cannot stand a moment scrutiny in the eye of law and the same is per se illegal which has to be necessarily set aside in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, in the considered opinion of this Court and resultantly, this Court without going into the merits of the matter in issue between the parties, allows the present civil revision petition without costs.
10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1431 of 2007 in O.S.No.394 of 2004 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to restore the I.A.No.1431 of 2007 to its file and to pass appropriate orders afresh in the manner known to law by keeping in mind the well settled principles of law. Further, the trial Court is directed to provide adequate opportunities to both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence before disposing of the said I.A. Added further, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the said I.A.No.1431 of 2007 on or before 10.06.2009 and to report compliance to this Court without fail. The revision petitioner/defendant is directed not to take unnecessary adjournments and to appear before the trial Court without any default. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in the interest of justice. Resultantly, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
rsb To
1.The District Munsif, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.
2.The Section Officer, (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, (To watch and report).