Dismissed

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, v. M.Rajarethinam, Aged 60 Yrs

Madras HC21 Jan 2014CRP(MD)/9/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order where the District Munsif rejected a petition to reject the plaint. The court held that title and possession issues requiring full trial could not be decided via writ petition affidavit and upheld the trial court's direction to conclude the suit by July 31, 2014.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition and connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed; suit to be disposed of on or before 31-July-2014.

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 21.01.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.9 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

R.Pitchammal ... Petitioner/2nd Petitioner/ 2nd Defendant

¶8

Vs - 1. M.Rajarethinam through his power agent Dr.M.Manikasundram ... Respondent/Respondent/ Plaintiff 2. R.M.Senthilkumar ... Respondent/1st Petitioner/ 1st Defendant

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order in I.A.No.443/2013 in O.S.No.1 of 2013, dated 31.10.2013, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.S.Asok Adithyan

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.Mohamed Eirsath for R.1

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner is the defendant before the trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the petition filed by her to reject the plaint filed by the first respondent herein, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶14

The first respondent herein filed a suit for mandatory injunction to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner in the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioner already filed her written statement on 18.02.2013 itself. The suit is pending for trial. Only at that stage, the petitioner filed a petition to reject the plaint. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court, holding that whether the respondent/plaintiff has got title ? or his possession has to be decided only at the time of trial, after receiving evidence from both sides.

¶15

Moreover the respondent also filed an application for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Further, while dismissing the petition, the trial Court, take into consideration of the fact that the

¶16

¶17

suit is with regard to Survey No.115/2C and Survey No.115/6, whereas the writ petition is with regard to Survey No.109/4, where the petitioner is alleged to encroach upon. The petitioner relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11755 of 2010 filed by the respondent, wherein the writ petition was dismissed holding that there is no encroachment in Survey No.109/4 of P.Karungulam Village. The writ proceedings are usually decided based on the affidavit, whereas in the suit a full pledged trial should be conducted, wherein all the parties would be at liberty to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, the proceedings in the writ petition cannot be equated with the suit. Moreover, the petitioner already filed a comprehensive written statement and every defence is taken in the written statement. When that is the position, it is appropriate for the petitioner to get ready for disposal of the suit. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be found fault with.

¶18

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶19

Considering the fact that the matter is ready for trial, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31-July-2014. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of the suit.

¶20

Ssl Sd/Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.

¶24

+1 cc to Mr.M.Subash Babu, Advocate Sr.No.3783.

¶25

+1 cc to Mr.K.Mohamed Eirsath, Advocate Sr.No.3692.

¶26

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.9 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶27

Dated:21.01.2014

¶28

2P/4C RPB 06.02.2014

¶29

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

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, v. M.Rajarethinam, Aged 60 Yrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, v. M.Rajarethinam, Aged 60 Yrs

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

V.Moni Vs the Assistant Executive

K.Raju Vs Maruthammal

R. Balasubramanian, Vs S. Sethukarai Nadar

Branch Manager, Vs Sivakami, W/O. Kannan

Mani, Vs Kalyani

Meenalochini Vs K.Ponnusamy