AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Janarthnam, J.—The revision petitioner was the plaintiff while respondents were defendants in the suit.
This suit property (Shop No. 89) is situate in village in Inam S.F. No. 131/3 of Sirudhaiyur Village, Lalgudy Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District. It
belongs to Arulmighu Saptharisheeswaraswamy Devasthanam, Lalgudy (second defendant). The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1413 of 1985
on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, for declaration of his status as the tenant of the suit property and for consequential permanent
injunction restraining the first defendant-Devasthanam from effecting any change in the tenancy agreement with regard to the suit property in favour
of the second or third defendant or any other person on their behalf till the disposal of the suit on merits.
The plaintiff would claim that he became a tenant of the suit property in the year 1969 on payment of rent at a specified rate of amount and he
continued to be so, as a tenant. Between the period February, 1979 and February, 1980, he was on pilgrimage tour and during such time, the suit
property was entrusted to the custody of the second defendant, who is no else than his cousin-brother and he was directed to pay the rent to the
suit property on his behalf. The further claim made is that the second defendant is now trying to claim tenancy rights in respect of the suit property
and above all, the third defendant is also attempting to become a tenant of the suit property with the help of the second defendant.
Subsequent to the filing of the suit and service of summons, the first defendant, despite so much of opportunities having been given, for filing
written statement, has not filed any written statement and consequently, it was set ex parte. Defendants 2 and 3 alone contested the suit and the
trial is pending.
In such a situation, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 607 of 1993 praying for passing of a decree against the first defendant under the salient provisions
adumbrated under Order 7, Rule 10 and Order 15, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ''CPC'') For such a relief it appears the
plaintiff, though impleaded the defendants as parties, did not give notice at all to them; but invited the court below to pass an order on the petition
so filed. In support of the stand so taken, implicit reliance has also been placed by the plaintiff upon the decision in Janakiraman v. The Director of
State Lotteries, Tamil Nadu (1991)1 M.L.J. 210.
Learned District Munsif, after considering the arguments of learned Counsel for the plaintiff, however, dismissed the application thereby refusing
to pass ex parte decree as prayed for against the first defendant The aggrieved plaintiff came forward with the present action. He also filed C.M.P.
No. 9960 of 1994 for stay of all further proceedings in the suit before the court below, pending disposal of the revision.
No doubt true it is that the plaintiff has impleaded defendants 1 to 3 as respondents 1 to 3 in this revision petition. However, it has been
mentioned in the cause title thus:
(Respondents 2 & 3 given up). Not necessary party in C.R.P.
8.Even at the outset I may state that there are absolutely no merits for the entertainment of this revision petition. Order 8, Rule 10, C.P.C., dealing
with the procedure when the party failed to present written statement called for by court, prescribes, ""where any party from whom a written
statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court
shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit, and on the pronouncement of such judgment a
decree shall be drawn up.
Order 15, Rule 2, C.P.C., deals with the situation of one of several defendants not at issue and the same is reflected as below:
(1) Where there are more defendants than one, and any one of the defendants is not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law or of fact, the
Court may at once pronounce judgment for or against such defendant and the suit shall proceed only against the other defendants.
(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and the decree shall bear
the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
A conjoint reading of the salient provisions adumbrated under Order 8, Rule 10 and Order 15, Rule 2, C.P.C., reveals, in unmistakable terms,
that no mandate is cast upon the court to pronounce a judgment at once for or against A defendant, who is not at issue with the plaintiff on any
question of law or fact. To put it otherwise, a discretion is given to the court to pronounce judgment at once or at the fag end of the trial, depending
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
The decision relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be stated to be of any help to advance his case, inasmuch as the said
decision also really reflects the provisions of the aforesaid Orders by stating that under the provisions of Order 8, Rule 10 and Order 15, Rule 2,
C.P.C., in a case where there are more defendants than one and there is no issue of fact or law arising between the plaintiff and one of such
defendants, as in that case, when the first defendant was set ex parte, it would be a matter for the court to consider whether on the facts and
circumstances of the case, it could exercise its powers under Order 15, Rule 2, C.P.C. and pass a decree ex parte against such defendants
immediately.
12 In the case on hand, in respect of the suit property belonging to the first defendant-landlord, the right of tenancy in relation to the property had
been claimed by the plaintiff as well as defendants 2 and 3. The suit itself is for a declaration of tenancy rights in favour of the plaintiff and for
consequential injunction restraining the first defendant or any other person on its behalf from making or effecting any change in the tenancy
arrangement with regard to the suit property in favour of either the second defendant or the third defendant or any other person on their behalf, till
the disposal of the suit on merits and when the landlord first defendant remained ex parte asking for a decree ex parte as against it, solely on the
ground of it being ex parte, is likely to spell out disastrous consequences and such a decree in the peculiar facts and circumstances cannot at all be
passed the moment the landlord first defendant remained ex parte when especially defendants 2 and 3 are contesting the claim of the plaintiff in the
suit, in which a relief against them is also prayed for.
The revision petition, as such, deserves to be dismissed even at the admission stage and accordingly the same is dismissed. Consequently
C.M.P. is also dismissed.