MOHAMED ALI versus V. JAYA & ORS.

[2022] 13 S.C.R. 274

[2022] 13 S.C.R.

MOHAMED ALI

V. JAYA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4113 of 2022)

BJULY 11, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Constitution of India: Art. 227 – Power of superintendenceover all courts by the High Court – Power of revision – Extent andscope of – Revision petitions u/Art. 227 challenging an ex-parteCjudgment and decree of specific performance of the trial court,and the order refusing to condone of delay in filing of an applicationfor setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree observingthat no sufficient cause was shown – High Court allowed the revisionpetitions and set aside the judgment and decree, holding that thereDwas total non-application of mind as the trial court did not considerthe aspect of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff;and that trial court without expressing anything on merits refusedto condone the delay – On appeal, held: High Court did not at allconsider whether the trial court was justified in refusing to condonesuch huge delay of 2345 days – High Court also did not appreciateEand consider the fact that the order passed by the trial court refusingto condone the delay of 1522 days in so far as original defendantNo. 1, had attained the finality – High Court did not consider themaintainability of the petition u/Art. 227 – Remedy to challenge theex-parte order was available by way of an appeal before the firstFappellate court – Thus, the High Court ought not to have entertainedthe revision application u/s. 115 CPC and u/Art. 227 – Also, theHigh Court simply set aside the order refusing to condone the delaywithout any express justification – While setting aside the ex-partejudgment and decree, the High Court commented upon the legalityand validity of the judgment and decree as if it was exercisingGappellate jurisdiction – High Court passed the order on irrelevantconsideration and relevant aspects were not considered – High Courtexceeded in its jurisdiction while setting aside the ex-parte judgment– Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is unsustainable, and quashed and set aside.H

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The High Court has not at all consideredwhether the trial court was justified in refusing to condone sucha huge delay of 2345 days. The High Court has also notappreciated and considered the fact that as such the order passedby the trial court refusing to condone the delay of 1522 days in sofar as original defendant No. 1, had attained the finality. Originaldefendant No. 1 straightway challenged the ex-parte judgmentand decree passed by the trial court by way of revision applicationunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whether therevision application before the High Court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India can be said to be maintainable or nothas not at all been considered. Even otherwise, the remedyagainst an ex-parte judgment and decree available to thedefendants was, either to file an application under Order IX Rule13 of CPC or to prefer an appeal before the first appellate court.The defendants availed the first remedy by way of filing theapplications under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. However, therewas huge delay of 1522 and 2345 days, which was not condonedby the trial court. Without expressing anything on whether thetrial court was justified in refusing to condone the delay, the HighCourt has simply set aside the order passed by the trial courtrefusing to condone the delay in so far as original defendant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned. The High Court ought to have dealt withand considered the question, whether, the trial court was justifiedin refusing to condone the delay or not. There is no discussion atall on the order passed by the trial court refusing to condone thedelay. [Para 6.1][283-B-F]1.2 Against the ex-parte judgment and decree, the remedyby way of an appeal before the first appellate court was available.Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained therevision application under Section 115 CPC and under Article227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court ought not tohave entertained such revision application challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree. Once there was statutory alternativeremedy by way of an appeal available to the defendants, the HighCourt ought not to have entertained writ petition or revisionapplication under Article 227 of the Constitution. [Para 6.2][283-G-H]

276SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A1.3 The High Court ought not to have entertained therevision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indiaagainst the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the trial courtin view of specific remedy of appeal as provided under the Codeof Civil Procedure itself. Therefore, the High Court hascommitted grave error in entertaining the revision petitionBunder Article 227 challenging the ex-parte judgment and decreepassed by the trial court and in quashing and setting aside thesame in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India. [Para 7.1][285-D-E]

C1.4 Even otherwise considering the impugned commonjudgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears thatwhile setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, the HighCourt commented upon the legality and validity of the judgmentand decree passed by the trial court as if the High Court wasexercising the appellate jurisdiction against the judgment andDdecree passed by the trial court. Before considering the judgmentand decree on merits and/or expressing anything on merits onthe legality and validity of the judgment and decree (ex-parte),the High Court was required to consider whether the trial courtwas justified in passing the ex-parte judgment and decree or not.EThe High Court was also required to consider whether the trialcourt was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1522 and2345 days in filing the petition challenging the ex-parte judgmentand decree. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,the impugned common judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is unsustainable, both, on law as well as on facts. The HighFCourt has exceeded in its jurisdiction while setting aside theex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article227 of the Constriction of India. The impugned common judgmentand order passed by the High Court is on irrelevant considerationsand the relevant aspects have not been considered and dealt withGby the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugnedcommon judgment and order passed by the High Court deserveto be quashed and set aside. [Para 7.2][285-F-H; 286-A-B]

1.5 The impugned common judgment and order dated19.11.2021 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition(NPD) No. 1054/2021 and Civil Revision Petition (PD) No. 1301/2021, is quashed and set aside. The ex-parte judgment and decreepassed by the trial court as well as the order(s) passed by thetrial court refusing to condone the delay of 2345 days in preferringthe revision petition(s) challenging the ex-parte judgment anddecree filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is restored. [Para8][286-C-D]

Radhey Shyam and Anr. v. Chhabi Nath and Ors. (2015)5 SCC 423 : [2015] 3 SCR 197; K. P. Natarajan and

Anr. v. Muthalammal and Ors. (2021) SCC Online SC

467 – referred to.

Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma ParibalanaSabai and Ors. v. Tuticorin Educational Society andOrs. (2019) 9 SCC 538 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

[2015] 3 SCR 197referred toPara 4.2(2019) 9 SCC 538relied onPara 7.1

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4113 of2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2021 of the High Courtof Madras at Madurai Bench in Civil Revision Petition (PD) (MD)No.1301 of 2021.

With

Civil Appeal No. 4114 of 2022

R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Bhupendra Pratap Singh, T. Gopal,G. Sivabalamurugan, Sachin Sharma, Vimal Pani, S.C.V., Advs. for theAppellant.

M. Karpagavinayagam, Sr. Adv., Nitin Kumar, Deepak Sharma,S. Gowthaman, Advs. for the Respondents.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Madrasat Madurai Bench in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 1054/2021 andBCivil Revision Petition (PD) No. 1301/2021, by which, in exercise ofpowers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court hasset aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned TrialCourt, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are asCunder: -

2.1 That the appellant herein – original plaintiff instituted suitbeing O.S. No. 15/2010 on the file of I Additional District Judge (PCR),Trichy for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 17.07.2009.The said suit was filed against four defendants. The defendants wereDplaced ex-parte. The learned Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgmentand decree dated 31.10.2012. That original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filedan application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. There wasa delay of 2345 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgmentand decree. Therefore, original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed an applicationErequesting to condone the delay of 2345 days. The original defendantNo. 1 also filed an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment anddecree. There was delay of 1522 days in filing the petition to set asidethe ex-parte judgment and decree. Therefore, original defendant No. 1also filed an application to condone the delay of 1522 days in filing thepetition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned TrialFCourt dismissed both the applications, one filed by original defendantNo. 1 and another filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 4.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed bythe learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 2345 days infiling the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, originalGdefendant Nos. 2 to 4 preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1054/2021before the High Court. Though, original defendant No. 1 did not challengethe order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing his application tocondone the delay of 1522 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, filed revision petition before the High Courtunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India being Civil Revision PetitionH

MOHAMED ALI v. V. JAYA & ORS.

No. 1301/2021 to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. By theimpugned common judgment and order, the High Court has allowed theaforesaid two revision petitions and has set aside the judgment and decreepassed by the learned Trial Court by observing that the judgment anddecree passed by the learned Trial Court is on total non-application ofmind as before passing the decree for specific performance, the learnedTrial Court has not considered the aspect of readiness and willingnesson the part of the plaintiff. Thus, by the impugned common judgmentand order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the High Court has set aside the ex-parte judgment and decreepassed by the learned Trial Court, without expressing anything on merits,whether the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone thedelay of 2345 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgmentand decree. Thus, the High Court has allowed Civil Revision Petition(CRP) No. 1045/2021 filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Beingaggrieved by the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the HighCourt in CRP No. 1301/2021 (filed by original defendant No. 1 to setaside the ex-parte judgment and decree) and CRP No. 1045/2021 (filedby original defendant Nos. 2 to 4) challenging the order passed by thelearned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 2345 days in filingthe petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, the originalplaintiff has preferred the present appeals.

3. Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Advocate, appearingon behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case the High Court has committed grave errorin setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in revision petition inexercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the appellant that the ex-parte judgment and decreepassed by the learned Trial Court was an appealable order and therefore,defendant No. 1 ought to have preferred an appeal rather than filing therevision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It issubmitted that therefore, when statutory appeal was provided againstthe judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court, the High Courtought not to have entertained the revision petition under Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India and ought not to have set aside the judgmentand decree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.

A3.2 It is further contended that even otherwise the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside the ex-partejudgment and decree is unsustainable. It is submitted that the High Courthas recorded the findings on legality and validity of the judgment anddecree passed by the learned Trial Court as if the High Court wasconsidering the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by theBlearned Trial Court. It is further submitted that the High Court has not atall considered and/or given any findings on whether the learned TrialCourt was justified in passing the ex-parte judgment and decree or not.It is submitted that only in case where the ex-parte judgment anddecree is set aside after giving the specific findings that the learned TrialCCourt was not justified and/or right in passing the ex-parte judgment anddecree that the merits of the judgment and decree was required to beconsidered.

3.3 It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of the appellant – original plaintiff that even otherwise theDHigh Court has not properly considered the fact that there was delayof 1522 days in filing the petition by original defendant No. 1 seeking toset aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. It is submitted that the learnedTrial Court dismissed the application and refused to condone the delayof 1522 days. That the order passed by the learned Trial Court refusingto condone the delay of 1522 days in filing the petition seeking to setEaside the judgment and decree, had attained finality as the same was notchallenged by original defendant No. 1. It is contended that therefore inthe absence of any challenge to the order passed by the learned TrialCourt refusing to condone the delay of 1522 days, the revision petition/application filed by defendant No. 1 challenging the ex-parte judgmentFand decree was not required to be entertained.

3.4 It is further submitted that even otherwise while setting asidethe ex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has not exercised itsdiscretion judiciously and has acted beyond the scope and ambit ofGexercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.5 It is further urged by learned Senior Advocate appearing onbehalf of the appellant – original plaintiff that even otherwise there areno findings recorded by the High Court on whether the learned TrialCourt was justified in not condoning the delay of 2345 and 1522 days inHfiling the petition for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.

That when there was huge delay of 2345 and 1522 days in filing thepetition for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree filed by originaldefendants No. 2 to 4 and defendant No. 1, respectively and when thelearned Trial Court by detailed order refused to condone the delay, thesame ought not to have been set aside by the High Court, that too, withoutconsidering the legality and validity of the order refusing to condone thedelay.

3.6 It is further submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearingon behalf of the original plaintiff that the High Court has set aside theex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article 227of the Constitution of India as if the High Court was exercising theappellate jurisdiction.

3.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentappeals.

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri M.Karpagavinayagam, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf ofthe respondents – original defendants.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of original defendants that the High Court has rightlyset aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on the ground that the ex-parte judgment and decree for specific performance of the agreementto sell was not in consonance with the procedure enunciated under OrderXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It is submitted that the HighCourt has set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree by observing thatwhile passing the decree for specific performance, the requirement ofproving readiness and willingness was not considered by the learnedTrial Court. It is submitted that even the respondents – original defendantsfiled written submission before the learned Trial Court. However, thelearned Trial Court did not consider the said aspect while passing the ex-parte judgment and decree.

4.2 Now so far as the submissions made by the learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the appellant on the maintainability ofthe revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thelearned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents – originaldefendants, has heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in thecase of Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors.; (2015)5 SCC 423 as well as in the case of K.P. Natarajan and Anr. Vs.

AMuthalammal and Ors; (2021) SCC Online SC 467. Relying uponthe said decisions, it is submitted that as held by this Court in the aforesaiddecisions, challenge to the judicial orders could lie by way of statutoryappeal or revision or under Article 227 but not by way of writ underArticle 226 or 32. It is submitted that in the present case, the defendantsinvoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of CPC asBwell as Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of two differentrevision petitions and on different grounds. That therefore, having foundthe ex-parte judgment and decree of specific performance of agreementto sell passed by the learned Trial Court was not in consonance with theprocedure to be followed under the CPC and the relevant aspects, whichCwere required to be considered under the provisions of the Specific ReliefAct, were not considered, the High Court has not committed any errorin setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.

4.3 Making the above submissions and relying upon the abovedecisions of this Court, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeals.D5. We have heard learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalfof the respective parties at length. We have also gone through theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned TrialCourt passed the ex-parte judgment and decree in the year 2012. ThatEafter period of 1522 and 2345 days, original defendant No. 1 anddefendants No. 2 to 4, respectively, filed the applications to set aside theex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Trial Court by detailedorder refused to condone the delay of 1522 and 2345 days by specificallyobserving that no sufficient cause has been shown in explaining the hugeFdelay in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte judgment anddecree. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 alone filed the revision applicationbefore the High Court challenging the order passed by the learned TrialCourt refusing to condone the delay of 2345 days. Defendant No. 1 didnot file any revision application before the High Court challenging theorder passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay inGfiling the application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.Instead, defendant No. 1 directly filed the revision application before theHigh Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging theex-parte judgment and decree and without considering the legality andvalidity of the order/orders passed by the learned Trial Court refusing toHcondone the huge delay of 1522/2345 days, by the impugned common

judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the ex-parte judgmentand decree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.

6.1 Having gone through the impugned common judgment andorder passed by the High Court, it can be seen that as such the HighCourt has not at all considered whether the learned Trial Court wasjustified in refusing to condone such huge delay of 2345 days. TheHigh Court has also not appreciated and considered the fact that assuch the order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone thedelay of 1522 days in so far as original defendant No. 1, had attained thefinality. Original defendant No. 1 straightway challenged the ex-partejudgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by way of revisionapplication under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whether therevision application before the High Court under Article 227 of theConstitution of India can be said to be maintainable or not has not at allbeen considered. Even otherwise, the remedy against an ex-partejudgment and decree available to the defendants was, either to file anapplication under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC or to prefer an appeal beforethe First Appellate Court. The defendants availed the first remedy byway of filing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. However,there was huge delay of 1522 and 2345 days, which was not condonedby the learned Trial Court. Without expressing anything on whether thelearned Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay, theHigh Court has simply set aside the order passed by the learned TrialCourt refusing to condone the delay in so far as original defendant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned. The High Court ought to have dealt with andconsidered the question, whether, the learned Trial Court was justified inrefusing to condone the delay or not. There is no discussion at all on theorder passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay.

6.2 Even otherwise and as observed hereinabove, against the ex-parte judgment and decree, the remedy by way of an appeal before theFirst Appellate Court was available. Therefore, the High Court oughtnot to have entertained the revision application under Section 115 ofCPC and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Courtought not to have entertained such revision application challenging theex-parte judgment and decree. Once there was statutory alternativeremedy by way of an appeal available to the defendants, the High Courtought not to have entertained writ petition or revision application underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India.

A7. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case ofVirudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Ors.Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Ors.; (2019) 9 SCC 538, isrequired to be referred to. In the said decision, it is observed and held bythis Court that wherever the proceedings are under the Code of CivilProcedure and the forum is the civil court, the availability of remedyBunder CPC, will deter the High Court and therefore, the High Courtshall not entertain the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia especially in case where specific remedy of appeal is providedunder the CPC itself. While holding so, it is observed and held inparagraphs 11 to 13 as under: -

“11. Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that when aremedy of appeal under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order 43,Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was directlyavailable, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken recourse tothe same. It is true that the availability of remedy of appeal maynot always be bar for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction ofthe High Court. In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan[A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695], this Court held that “though no hurdle can be put against theexercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is awell-recognised principle which gained judicial recognition thatthe High Court should direct the party to avail himself of suchremedies before he resorts to constitutional remedy”.

12. But courts should always bear in mind distinction between(i) cases where such alternative remedy is available before civilcourts in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and(ii) cases where such alternative remedy is available under specialenactments and/or statutory rules and the fora provided thereinhappen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In respect ofcases falling under the first category, which may involve suits andother proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellateremedy in terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to beconstrued as near total bar. Otherwise, there is danger thatsomeone may challenge in revision under Article 227, even adecree passed in suit, on the same grounds on which Respondents1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision

in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. RamChander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] , pointed out in RadheyShyam v. Chhabi Nath [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015)5 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 67] that “orders of civil courtstand on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunalsor courts other than judicial/civil courts”.

13. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the Code ofCivil Procedure and the forum is the civil court, the availability ofa remedy under the CPC, will deter the High Court, not merely asa measure of self-imposed restriction, but as matter of disciplineand prudence, from exercising its power of superintendence underthe Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to haveentertained the revision under Article 227 especially in casewhere specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code ofCivil Procedure itself.”

7.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaiddecision to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court ought not tohave entertained the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India against the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learnedTrial Court in view of specific remedy of appeal as provided under theCode of Civil Procedure itself. Therefore, the High Court has committeda grave error in entertaining the revision petition under Article 227challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learnedTrial Court and in quashing and setting aside the same in exercise ofpowers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.7.2 Even otherwise considering the impugned common judgmentand order passed by the High Court, it appears that while setting asidethe ex-parte judgment and decree, the High Court has commented uponthe legality and validity of the judgment and decree passed by the learnedTrial Court as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdictionagainst the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Beforeconsidering the judgment and decree on merits and/or expressing anythingon merits on the legality and validity of the judgment and decree (ex-parte), the High Court was required to consider whether the learnedTrial Court was justified in passing the ex-parte judgment and decree ornot. The High Court was also required to consider whether the learnedTrial Court was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1522 and2345 days in filing the petition challenging the ex-parte judgment and

Adecree. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable, both, on law as well as on facts. The High Court hasexceeded in its jurisdiction while setting aside the ex-parte judgment anddecree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constriction ofIndia. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the HighBCourt is on irrelevant considerations and the relevant aspects as observedhereinabove have not been considered and dealt with by the High Court.Under the circumstances, the impugned common judgment and orderpassed by the High Court deserve to be quashed and set aside.

8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theCpresent Appeals Succeed. The impugned common judgment and orderdated 19.11.2021 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition(NPD) No. 1054/2021 and Civil Revision Petition (PD) No. 1301/2021,is hereby quashed and set aside. The ex-parte judgment and decreepassed by the learned Trial Court as well as the order(s) passed by the

Dlearned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 2345 days inpreferring the revision petition(s) challenging the ex-parte judgment anddecree filed by original defendant Nos. 2 to 4 is/are hereby restored.Present appeals are allowed accordingly. In the facts of the case, thereshall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.