The Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an order rejecting the applicant's plea for rejection of plaint. The trial court held the matter requires a trial to determine property rights. Directions were issued for expeditious disposal.
Opposed suit application rejected; suit directed for expeditious disposal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1714 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.9141 of 2016
S.Vijayakumari W/o.Late Shanumugam
... Petitioner
vs
3.N.Gouthami D/o.V.K.Nagarajan
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District, passed in I.A.No.1062 of 2015 in O.S.No.797 of 2009 on 24.03.2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balasubramanian
2
O R D E R
This revision arises against the order of learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District, passed in I.A.No.1062 of 2015 in O.S.No.797 of 2009 on 24.03.2016.
the respondents/plaintiffs, who sought relief of injunction against disturbance with their possession, base their claim on a partition deed of the year 1990, the petitioner/defendant relies on revenue records. The revenue records relied upon by petitioner/defendant informed of certain sub-divisions in particular survey number while the case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that
they are entitled to a portion of the undivided survey field. The Court below, therefore, opined that it would only be through trial that the entitlement of
3
parties could be decided. It, further, found that the application has been moved after a period of seven years. Petitioner had not produced any proof regards a suit allegedly moved by the petitioner party in O.S.No.1204 of 1996. In the circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the suit is of the year 2009
and a direction may be given for early disposal, this Court directs learned District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District, to dispose of O.S.No.797 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible.
24.06.2016
Index:yes/no Internet:yes gm To The District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District.
4
C.T.SELVAM, J
gm
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.1714 of 2016
24.06.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order dismissing the applicant's plea for rejection of plaint due to delay and lack of proof.
Whether the civil suit should be disposed of expeditiously given its age.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Vijayakumari
V.Nagaraja (died)
N.Bagaiyalakshmi
N.Mohanbabu
N.Gouthami
C.T. Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
