Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the dismissal of an application to summon a purchaser and mark a sale deed. The High Court found no irregularity in the lower court's order allowing marking of certified copies and dismissed the revision.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
CRP.(PD).No.3906of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.12.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
CRP.(PD).No.3906 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.25751 of 2019
1. P.R.Moorthy
2. Sowbagyavathi ... Petitioner
Versus
Corporation of Chennai
by its Zonal Officer,
Zone II, Manali, Chennai 600 068 ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.162 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvotriyur.
For petitioner : Mr. N.R.Anantha Rama Krishna
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at the Admission stage itself.
1/4
CRP.(PD).No.3906of 2019
2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Order XVI Rule 7A CPC to summon the petitioner's purchaser as a witness and also to mark the sale deed in evidence.
of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvotriyur, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending suit, the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2019, to summon to one Sola Ram and Prema Bai, for producing their respective sale deeds and adduce evidence, stating that part of the land in the suit survey number has been sold in favour of them, so the petitioner wants to examine the purchasers and also to mark the original sale deed in evidence. The trial Court, by an order dated 30.08.2019, dismissed the application holding that if the petitioner wants to mark the sale deed, he can very well mark the certified copy
of the sale deed and there is no necessity for him to summon the purchaser for giving evidence and mark the document. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
2/4
CRP.(PD).No.3906of 2019
defendants are interfering with the petitioners' possession suit has been filed by the petitioners. If at all the petitioners want to mark the sale deed, they can very well mark the certified copy of the documents through their evidence and there is no necessity to examine the purchaser and mark the sale deed in evidence. The trial Court after considering the materials rightly dismissed the application. I find no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Hence,
I find no merit in the Civil Revision Petition.
03.12.2019 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking/Non-Speaking order mrp
To
The District Munsif Court, Thiruvotriyur.
3/4
CRP.(PD).No.3906of 2019
V.BHARATHIDASAN
mrp
CRP.(PD).No.3906 of 2019
03.12.2019
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in dismissing the application to summon the purchaser and mark the sale deed.
P.R. Moorthy
Sowbagyavathi
Corporation of Chennai
V. Bharathidasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
