Allowed

N. Ashish Karwa, v. a.Pinky Sureka

Madras HC3 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/392/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madr**as High** Court held that impugned non-speaking orders dismissing interlocutory applications were void. Revision petitioners sought Article 227 remedies against orders dated 20.02.2014 in O.S. No. 5/2010 before the Principal District Judge, Tuticorin. The bench set aside the dismissal and directed expeditious disposal of the suit alongside connected suits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 20.02.2014 in I.A.Nos. 26, 27, 28 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010 were set aside and applications allowed; direction for expeditious disposal of suit and connected suits.

N. Ashish Karwa, Vs a.Pinky Sureka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶5

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.392, 393 & 394 of 2014 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2014 in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.392 of 2014

¶6

N.Ashish Karwa ... Petitioner / 2nd Defendant / Petitioner in all C.R.Ps

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1.A.Pinki Sureka

¶9

2.M/s.Tamil Nadu Industrial

¶10

Investment Corporation

¶11

Through its Manager Ramanathapuram

¶12

3.M/s.Krishna Trading Corporation through it's Proprietor

¶13

H.Anand Kumar Sureka ... Plaintiff / Defendants 1 & 3 / Respondents/Respondents

¶14

PRAYER (in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.392 of 2014) : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal orders dated 20.02.2014 and made in I.A.No.26 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.

¶15

PRAYER (in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.393 of 2014) : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal orders dated 20.02.2014 and made in I.A.No.27 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.

¶16

PRAYER (in C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.394 of 2014) : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal orders dated 20.02.2014 and made in I.A.No.28 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Jeremiah (in all C.R.Ps) For Respondents : Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram for R1 (in all C.R.Ps) R2-No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R3-Mr.G.Palani Kumar

¶18

¶19

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶20

All the three memorandums of civil revision petitions have been directed against the fair and decretal orders, dated 20.02.2014, and made in I.A.Nos.26, 27 & 28 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin.

¶21

With the parties as well as the issue involved in all the memorandums of civil revision petitions are one and the same, they have been consolidated together, heard jointly and are being disposed of in this common order.

¶22

The revision petitioner herein is the second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, whereas the first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 3 therein.

¶23

The first respondent/plaintiff seems to have filed the above suit in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, against the revision petitioner/second defendant as well as the respondents 1 and 3/defendants 1 and 3, seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction and declaration. The revision petitioner/second defendant as well as the second respondent/first defendant have contested the suit by way of filing their respective written statements.

¶24

After the completion of the process of recording of evidence on behalf of both sides, on 20.02.2014, the suit was posted for arguments on the side of the revision petitioner/second defendant as well as on the side of the third respondent/third defendant. Whileso, the revision petitioner/ second defendant had taken out three interlocutory applications viz., I.A.No.26 of 2010, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reopen the suit; I.A.No.27 of 2014, under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 C.P.C., to recall the revision petitioner/ second defendant, who was examined as D.W.2; and I.A.No.28 of 2014, under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) r/w Section 151 C.P.C., to receive the documents specified in the application as additional documentary evidences on his side.

¶25

All these three interlocutory applications were dismissed, on 20.02.2014, by the learned Trial Judge with a direction to the revision petitioner/second defendant to be ready to argue the case and co-operate with the Court for disposal within the time. While passing the Order, the learned Trial Judge has observed that there is a specific direction given by this Court (Madurai Bench of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madras High Court) for the disposal of the suit along with the connected suits within a specific period and that all these cases

¶26

¶27

were pending only for hearing arguments on the side of the revision petitioner/second defendant.

¶28

Challenging the order of dismissal, dated 20.02.2014, in all the three interlocutory applications, the revision petitioner/second defendant has come forward with these memorandums of civil revision petitions.

¶29

Heard Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/second defendant, Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff as well as Mr.G.Palani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/third defendant and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

The second respondent/first defendant, despite service of notice, has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel and therefore he is called absent.

¶31

It is revealed from the records that this Court, on 25.04.2011, while passing a common order in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) Nos.377 & 378 of 2011, Tr.C.M.P.(MD) Nos.52 & 53 of 2011 and C.M.A.(MD) No.87 of 2011, has observed that it is agreed by both the parties that O.S.No.91 of 2008, which is pending on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tuticorin and O.S.No.592 of 2005, which is pending on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, can be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2010, which is pending on the file of the learned District Judge, Tuticorin and they have no objection for joint trial of the three suits by the learned District Judge, Tuticorin. As afore-stated, referring to the common order of this Court, dated 25.04.2011, passed by this Court, the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, has proceeded to dismiss the above three interlocutory applications, on 20.02.2014.

¶32

This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/2nd defendant, Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff as well as Mr.G.Palani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/3rd defendant.

¶33

Having been given it's careful consideration, this Court is of firm view that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders, dated 20.02.2014, and made in I.A.Nos.26, 27 & 28 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, are non-speaking orders and the object for which those applications are filed, have not been considered by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Trial Judge. Simply, he has observed that since this Court has given a direction for speedy disposal directing the

¶34

¶35

revision petitioner/second defendant to be ready to argue the case, he has proceeded to dismiss all the three interlocutory applications and on account of this reason, this Court finds that the impugned orders may be set aside and the interlocutory applications may be allowed, with a direction to the learned Trial Judge to dispose the suit expeditiously.

¶36

In the result, all these memorandums of civil revision petitions are allowed and the fair and decreetal orders, dated 20.02.2014, and made in I.A.Nos.26, 27 & 28 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, are set aside and I.A.Nos.26, 27 & 28 of 2014 are allowed. Further, the learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin, is directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.5 of 2010 along with the connected suits expeditiously. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(Records)

¶39

/True Copy/

¶40

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶41

To:

¶42

The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Tuticorin.

¶43

+3ccs to Mr.G.Jeremiah, Advocate, in SR. No.20146 to 20148/14.

¶44

+1cc to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate, in SR. No.20308/14.

¶45

C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.392, 393 & 394 of 2014 03.04.2014 ns/krk msm 02.07.2014 p4/6c

¶46

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

N. Ashish Karwa, v. a.Pinky Sureka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Ashish Karwa, v. a.Pinky Sureka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Asokan,S/O.Late.Paramasivam, Vs Pandian Hospital & Medical

S.Arumugapandi, Vs S.Vanniarajan @ Vanniaraja

Madurai Kunniya Vagaiyara Vs K.R.Janakiram

L.Prema Vs Devadoss

R.Mamundi Vs N.Kamaraj

M.Munavvara, Vs a.Amanullah