Dismissed

P.Kalaivani v. Janssi

Madras HC14 Jun 2016CRP/1651/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single common order dismissed four civil revision petitions filed challenging the lower court's allowance of reply statements by plaintiffs in title suits. The High Court held there was no error in permitting the reply statements as they were explanatory of amended pleadings.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs ordered. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

P.Kalaivani Vs Janssi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.06.2016

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1651, 1652, 1653 and 1654 of 2016 and C.M.P.Nos.8916, 8917, 8918 and 8919 of 2016

¶7

C.R.P.(PD) No.1651 of 2016

¶8

1.P.Kalaivani

¶9

W/o.V.K.Palanisami

¶10

2.P.Gayathri W/o.Arul Karthikeyan

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

¶13

1.Dr.Smt.Janssi W/o.A.P.Ramalingam

¶14

V.K.Palanisamy (Died)

¶15

2.The Thasildar, Pollachi.

¶16

3.The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

¶17

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.891 of 2013 in O.S.No.523 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶20

¶21

C.R.P.(PD) No.1652 of 2016

P.Kalaivani

W/o.V.K.Palanisami

... Petitioners

1.K.Rathimala W/o.Kamalanathan

¶27

2.The Thasildar, Pollachi.

¶28

3.The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

¶29

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.890 of 2013 in O.S.No.522 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶32

C.R.P.(PD) No.1653 of 2016

¶33

1.P.Kalaivani

¶34

W/o.V.K.Palanisami

¶35

2.P.Gayathri W/o.Arul Karthikeyan ... Petitioners

¶36

¶37

1.Sakkubai W/o.K.K.Mahadevan

¶38

V.K.Palanisamy (Died)

¶39

¶40

2.The Thasildar, Pollachi.

¶41

3.The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

¶42

4.The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶43

... Respondents

¶44

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.888 of 2013 in O.S.No.529 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶45

C.R.P.(PD) No.1654 of 2016

¶46

P.Gayathri W/o.K.Arul

¶47

... Petitioner

¶48

¶49

1.Jayam @ Jaya W/o.A.P.Rathinam Gounder

¶50

2.M.Vishalakshi W/o.Mylsamy Gounder

¶51

3.The Thasildar, Pollachi.

¶52

4.The Sub Collector, Pollachi.

¶53

5.The District Collector, Coimbatore.

¶54

... Respondents

¶55

¶56

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 03.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.889 of 2013 in O.S.No.530 of 2003 on the file of District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

¶57

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Saravanan (in all revisions)

¶58

¶59

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶60

These revision petitions have been filed challenging the order of learned

¶61

District Munsif, Pollachi, passed in I.A.No.891 of 2013 in O.S.No.523 of 2003, I.A.No.890 of 2013 in O.S.No.522 of 2003, I.A.No.888 of 2013 in O.S.No.529 of

¶62

2003 and I.A.No.889 of 2013 in O.S.No.530 of 2003 on 03.02.2015.

¶63

In all the revision petitions, first respondents are plaintiffs in the above suits and petitioners are defendants. Plaintiffs have filed applications seeking leave of the Court to receive the reply statement filed by them. The Court below, under orders dated 03.02.2015, allowed the applications. There against, the present revision petitions have been filed.

¶64

Heard learned counsel for petitioners.

¶65

¶66

In granting the relief to the first respondents/plaintiffs to file reply statements, the Court below has reasoned that the suits have been preferred by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and consequential reliefs and amendment of the plaints earlier having been allowed, the reply statements sought to be tendered were one which were explanatory of the pleadings as amended. The orders have been made at an early stage of the proceedings, the case being at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1, who has filed his proof affidavit. Considering so, the Court below has rejected the contention of defendants that permitting the plaintiffs to file reply statements would amount to introduction of a new case and new cause of action which would prejudice the defendants. This Court finds no error in the orders under challenge.

¶67

The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶68

14.06.2016

¶69

Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm

¶70

¶71

The District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

C.T.SELVAM, J

Civil Revision Petition (PD) Nos.1651, 1652, 1653 and 1654 of 2016

¶76

14.06.2016

P.Kalaivani v. Janssi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kalaivani v. Janssi

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

K.Preetha Vs Neelakumar

Mahalakshmi Vs P.Hemkumar

P.Palani Gounder, Vs a.Sengodan

T. Venkatapathy, Vs S.R. Sridhar

V.Subathra Vs N.Rengarajan

V. Chendroyan, Vs N. Srinivasan