Allowed

Gandhimathi v. R.George S/O.D.M.Raja

Madras HC11 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/1979/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madrass High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition against an order dismissing a request for a joint trial of two original suits. The court directed the trial court to conduct a simultaneous trial as both suits involved the same survey number for the property.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed; the lower court's order setting aside the interlocutory application was quashed, and a simultaneous trial of the two suits was directed.

Gandhimathi Vs R.George S/O.D.M.Raja — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.10.2011

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD)No.1979 of 2011

¶4

and

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MD)No.1 of 2011

¶6

Gandhimathi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.R.George

¶9

2.Asiriar Kudiyiruppu Manai Orimaiyalar Mattum Kudiyiruppor Nala Sangam represented by its Secretary Justin Paul.

¶10

3.Nallamuthu @ Muthammal

¶11

4.Esakkimuthu

¶12

5.Subbulekshmi

¶13

6.Azhakusundari

¶14

7.Murugalekshmi

¶15

8.Ravichandran

¶16

9.Lekshmanan @ Ramiah 10.Rajammmal

¶17

11.Albi

¶18

12.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by District Collector, Kanyakumari District.

¶19

13.The Tahsildar, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶20

14.The Village Administrative Officer, Senbagaramanputhoor, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents

¶21

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 05.10.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.260 of 2010 in Original Suit No.587 of 2008 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram No.1

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 05.10.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.260 of 2010 in Original Suit No.587 of 2008 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶26

The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.587 of 2008 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The second respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.661 of 2008 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and injunction. Since in both the suits, subject matter of the suit is one and the same, the present petition has been filed for having a joint trial. But the Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner as revision petitioner.

¶27

Considering the fact that in both the suits, same survey number has been shown as suit property and also considering the nature of the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.260 of 2010 as well as order passed thereon, notice need not be sent to the remaining respondents and this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of on the basis of the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner as well as on the side of the first respondent.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in both the suits, the property comprised in new Survey No.749/37 has been shown as suit property and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same.

¶29

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has contended that in Original Suit No.587 of 2008, the suit property is admeasuring only 9 cents and whereas the suit property in Original Suit No.661 of 2008 is admeasuring 1.92 acres and further the plaintiff and defendant found in Original Suit No.587 of 2008 are not parties in Original Suit No.661 of 2008 and under the said circumstances the present petition is not factually and legally maintainable and therefore the order passed by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference.

¶30

For considering the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the description of suit property mentioned in each suit. It is an admitted fact that in Original Suit No.587 of 2008, new Survey No.749/37 measuring 9 cents of land has been shown as suit property. It is also equally an admitted fact that in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Original Suit No.661 of 2008, the entire property which is comprised in new Survey No.749/37 has been shown as suit property. Of course,

¶31

¶32

it is true that the parties in Original Suit No.587 of 2008 have not been arrayed as parties in Original Suit No.661 of 2008. Considering the fact that Original Suit No.587 of 2008 has been instituted for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions and also considering that Original Suit No.661 of 2008 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and injunction and further as stated earlier in both the suits the very same new survey number has been shown as suit property, this Court is of the view to direct the Court below to conduct simultaneous trial and to that extent the present Civil Revision Petition can be allowed.

¶33

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.260 of 2010 in Original Suit No.587 of 2008 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is set aside and the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil is directed to conduct simultaneous trial in both the suits. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(T&P)

¶36

/True Copy/

¶37

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶38

¶39

The Second Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶40

+1cc to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, Sr.No.35297

¶41

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1979 of 2011

¶42

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 11.10.2011

¶43

smn

¶44

SMA/20.10.2011/3C/3P

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Gandhimathi v. R.George S/O.D.M.Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandhimathi v. R.George S/O.D.M.Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamil Nadu State Transport Vs Settukumar

Sabruhan Beevi Vs Tamilnadu Ashpestos and Cement

Alagar, S/O.Mari, Vs Chellachamy, S/O.Ponnuthevar

Radhakrishnan Vs Muthuselvi, F/25

Ponnumony Vs Hentry

C.Petchikumar Vs S.Chandra @ Jeyalakshmi