Supreme Court Restores Ex-Parte Judgment, Emphasizes Adherence to Statutory Remedies

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It held that the High Court erred in entertaining revision petitions under Article 227 instead of the available appeal remedy under the CPC. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by not addressing the Trial Court's refusal to condone the significant delays in filing. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory remedies and the limitations of High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the High Court correctly addressed the refusal to condone the delay of 1522 and 2345 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.
3. Whether the revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were maintainable when a statutory appeal was available.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of High Court's Exercise of Powers under Article 227
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court without addressing the legality and validity of the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay. It was emphasized that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining the revision petitions under Article 227 when a specific remedy of appeal was available under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court should not have entertained the revision petitions under Article 227, especially when the defendants had an alternative appellate remedy. The Supreme Court cited the decision in *Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Ors.* to support its stance that the High Court should refrain from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 when a statutory appeal is available.

Issue 2: Refusal to Condon Delay
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not consider whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone the delays of 1522 and 2345 days. The High Court failed to discuss the detailed order of the Trial Court, which had refused to condone the delay due to the lack of sufficient cause shown by the defendants. The Supreme Court asserted that the High Court should have addressed whether the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay was justified before setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was unsustainable as it did not consider the relevant aspects and exceeded its jurisdiction.

Issue 3: Maintainability of Revision Petitions under Article 227
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a statutory appeal is available, the High Court should not entertain a revision petition under Article 227. The defendants had the remedy to file an appeal against the ex-parte judgment and decree, which they did not pursue. Instead, they filed revision petitions under Article 227, which the High Court entertained. The Supreme Court emphasized that the availability of an appellate remedy under the CPC should deter the High Court from exercising its power under Article 227. The Supreme Court cited the decision in *Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors.* to underline that orders of civil courts stand on a different footing from orders of tribunals or quasi-judicial authorities, and the High Court should exercise restraint in such matters.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had committed a grave error by entertaining the revision petitions under Article 227 and setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree without addressing the justification of the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory remedies provided under the CPC and the limitations of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

---