Partly allowed

P.Indirani v. Arumigu Chokkanathar

Madras HC15 Feb 2018CRP/506/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition partly, setting aside the lower court order entirely. The court held that while the plea for permanent injunction was time-barred, the petitioner could file an additional written statement to raise jurisdictional and court fee objections, despite the ten-year delay, excluding the time-barred injunction plea.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the interlocutory application is set aside. Application to file additional written statement is allowed, except for the prayer of permanent injunction. Suit to be disposed of with

P.Indirani Vs Arumigu Chokkanathar — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No.506 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.2509 of 2017
P.Indhirani .. Petitioner/Defendant
-Vs-
Arulmigu Chokkanathar Thirukovil,
Kashilingampalayam,
Pappankulam,
Seiyur, Thekkalur,
Tirupur District. .. Respondent/Plaintiff

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed by the District Munsif Court Avanashi dated 06.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.1125 of 2016 in O.S.No.91 of 2006.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Stalin For Respondent : Mr.K.Ashok Kumar

¶9

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the District Munsif Court Avanashi dated 06.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.1125 of 2016 in O.S.No.91 of 2006.

¶14

2.According to the petitioner, respondent/plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.91 of 2006 for declaration as against the petitioner/defendant herein. In the aforesaid suit the

¶15

petitioner/defendant has filed written statement on 29.11.2006. Thereafter, the case was posted for trial. Trial has commenced in the aforesaid suit and posted for examination of the plaintiff side evidence. At this stage an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1125 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for permitting the petitioner to file an additional written statement. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant would submit that the petitioner/defendant has raised a plea in the additional written statement, by stating that the aforesaid suit is barred by jurisdiction and disputed Court fee paid by the respondent/plaintiff as per the market value of the property and

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

prayed in the counter claim for permanent injunction in the aforesaid additional written statement. Therefore, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶20

4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the petitioner/defendant has filed additional written statement at the time of examination of the plaintiff side evidence. The written statement has been filed on 22.11.2006, nearly after ten years, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present petition by receiving the counter claim for granting of permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner/defendant. The prayer of injunction in the claim petition is barred by limitation. Therefore, the petitioner cannot file the present petition without any reason stated in the affidavit. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application in I.A.No.1125 of 2016 submitted by the petitioner/defendant.

¶21

5.By considering the facts and circumstances of this case and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement on 22.11.2006, the present counter claim has been filed in the year 2016. On a perusal of the affidavit, it is found that the petitioner/defendant has not stated any reason for the delay of more

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

than ten years for filing additional written statement. Further, commenced the trial. At that stage an application filed without any reason for delay in the affidavit. Therefore, order passed by the Court below is sustainable. Hence, there is no error illegal in the order passed by the Court below. However, so far as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and as well as the valuation of the Court fee is concerned.

¶25

6.The prayer of consequential injunction as sought for in the additional written statement is barred by limitation and therefore the order of the Court below is confirmed in so far as the prayer for permanent injunction. In so far the remaining plea raised in the additional written statement by the petitioner/defendant, can be agitated at the time of trial in the suit. Therefore, the application to permit the petitioner to file additional written statement is allowed, except for prayer of permanent injunction.

¶26

7.In fine, the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the District Munsif Court, Avanashi in I.A.No.1125 of 2016 in O.S.No.91 of 2006 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. Both the parties undertake to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the suit.

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

8.Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed with a

¶30

direction to the District Munsif Court, Avinashi to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the

¶31

connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

15.02.2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Note: Issue Order Copy on 26.02.2018
ah
To
The District Munsif Court,
Avanashi.

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶34

¶35

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶36

¶37

CRP (PD) No.506 of 2017
and
C.M.P.No.2509 of 2017

¶38

15.02.2018

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

P.Indirani v. Arumigu Chokkanathar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Indirani v. Arumigu Chokkanathar

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

S.K.Ramachandran Vs Thiru.M.Rajasekar

V.Parameswaran Vs Vijayalakshmi

V.Parameswaran Vs Vijayalakshmi

G.Narayanan Vs E.Palani

S.N.Balapattabi Vs Balanagalakshmi

Mohamed Ummer Vs Papammal @ Pappu