Allowed

Tmt. T. Chandrakala v. G. Ramamoorthy

Madras HC27 Nov 2017CRP/767/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court directed the trial court to dispose of pending partition and injunction suits within six months, noting the long pendency without addressing the merits of the rejection application.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of the suits O.S. No. 191 of 2005 and O.S. No. 140 of 2015 within six months.

Tmt. T. Chandrakala Vs G. Ramamoorthy — Partition | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.11.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 767 of 2016 and

¶7

C.M.P. No. 4204 of 2016

¶8

T. Chandrakala 2. B. Bala Vignesh @ VigneshKanyaram (Minor) .. Petitioners

¶9

¶10

G. Ramamoorthy .. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 24.08.2015 passed in I.A. No. 294 of 2015 in O.S. No. 140 of 2015 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr. M. Aravind Subramaniam For Respondent : No Appearance

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This revision arises against the order dated 24.08.2015

¶16

passed in I.A. No. 294 of 2015 in O.S. No. 140 of 2015 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore.

¶17

The respondent herein has filed a suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2015 for permanent injunction. The revision petitioners/ defendants filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 294 of 2015, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint, stating that the defendants had already executed sale deeds, a suit for partition has been filed in O.S. No. 191 of 2005, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S. No. 12 of 2013. Therefore, the subject matter in O.S. No. 140 of 20015 is not maintainable and hence the said suit is liable to be rejected. However, the trial court, without considering the contention of the petitioners have erroneously dismissed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2015 for permanent injunction and another suit in O.S. No. 190 of 2005 for partition. Therefore, this civil revision petition has been filed.

¶18

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶19

¶20

submitted before this Court that it would be suffice if a direction is given to the trial court to dispose of the suit, within the time frame fixed by this Court, since the suit is pending from the year 2005 and the present suit is of the year 2015.

¶21

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, without going into the merits of the case, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S. No. 191 of 2005, re-numbered as O.S. No. 12 of 2013, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioners to file appropriate application, for joint trial or simultaneous trial of the suits pending, if so advised.

¶22

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above

¶23

direction. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶24

No order as to costs.

¶25

27.11.2017

¶26

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶27

¶28

avr

¶29

Index : Yes/ No Speaking order/ Non speaking order [Issue order copy on 29.11.2017] avr To The III Additional District & Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

¶30

CRP (PD) No. 767 of 2016 and C.M.P. No. 4204 of 2016

¶31

27.11.2017

Tmt. T. Chandrakala v. G. Ramamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt. T. Chandrakala v. G. Ramamoorthy

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

Salendra Ammal(Died) Vs the Collector

Murugammal Vs R. Dharman

G.v.Durgan @ G.v.Durganathan Vs K.M.Velumani

C.Ranganathan, Vs N.Duraisamy,Aged About 50

The Superintending Engineer Vs Sri Balaji Educational and

Saravanan Vs Magma Fincorp Limited