AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in the petition for review of the
judgment dated 1.12.1981 in A.S.No.71 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The revision petitioners filed the review
application mainly on the ground that the first petitioner was made to believe and sign a joint endorsement fraudulently in A.S.No.71 of 1981 and
that therefore the said joint endorsement as well as the judgment rendered on that basis have to be reviewed. While the petition was posted for
arguments on 28.4.1994, the petitioners'' counsel reported want of instructions and in spite of such circumstance, the petition was dismissed on
merits. Hence, the revision.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the names of the respondents 2 to 7 printed in the list, they have neither appeared in
person nor represented through counsel.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the High Court, Madras in
C.M.S.A.No.87 of 1986 setting aside the decree and judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.71 of 1981 and confirming the order for re-
delivery passed in E.A.No.69 of 1981 in E.P.No.506 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry. It is therefore urged by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in view of the judgment rendered by the High Court, Madras in C.M.S.A.No.87 of 1986, the
judgment and decree passed in the first appeal in A.S.No.71 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Court at Pondicherry are liable to be set
aside and that it follows that any further proceedings in pursuance of that decision in the first appeal for taking taking delivery are null and void.
Hence, he has urged that the lower appellate Court did not consider the said judgment rendered by the High Court, Madras while disposing of the
application in C.R.A.No.12 of 1993 in A.S.No.71 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
It is clear from the impugned order that even though the counsel on record for the petitioners in the said proceedings reported want of
instructions on the previous day, the lower appellate Court proceeded to dispose of the petition on merits without taking efforts to inform the non-
appearance of the counsel to the parties. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision Malkiat
Singh v. Joginder Singh AIR 1998 S.C. 258 for the proposition that the lower appellate court ought to have given one more chance to the
petitioners by sending them a notice so as to enable them to prosecute their cause on merits by engaging another counsel.
On a careful perusal of the records of the case in the light of the ratio laid down in the decision, this Court is of the considered view that one
more chance can be afforded to the revision petitioner to prosecute their cause on merits.
In this view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the matter be remitted back for fresh
disposal in accordance with law by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court is directed to dispose of the petition after giving
opportunity to both sides within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Records if any are directed to be sent to the lower
appellate Court forthwith. However, there will be no order as to costs.