Allowed

Papayee v. R.Krishnamoorthy

Madras HC1 Oct 2019CRP(MD)/1384/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an interlocutory application to reopen a suit for examination of vendors. The court observed that liberty to examine witnesses remained unstopped and directed the lower court to dispose of the suit within four months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 27.06.2019 is set aside; the District Munsif is directed to dispose of the suit within four months.

Papayee Vs R.Krishnamoorthy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1384 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.10.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶5

C.R.P(MD)No.1384 of 2019 and CMP(MD) No. 7413 of 2019

¶6

... Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶7

Papayee (Her Power Agent Sornam (Died) (Cause title accepted vide order of this Court dated 30.07.2019 made in C.M.P.(MD).No.6462 of 2019 in C.R.P.(MD).No.SR.53060 of 2019)

¶8

Vs.

¶9

R.Krishnamoorthy 2. Neelavathi ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶10

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow the above Civil Revision Petition thereby set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 27.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.217 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Selvanayagam For Respondents : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 27.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.217 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.

¶14

The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.217 of 2009 for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff has filed an interlocutory application in I.A. NO.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.217 of 2009 under Section 151 of CPC before the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi, for re-opening the plaintiff side evidence and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same the revision petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the aforesaid IA was filed to examine the vendors of the sale deed, dated 27.07.2005 as witnesses. It is necessary to examine the vendors of the sale deed to prove his title. He further contended that already he has filed an interlocutory application in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/4

¶17

C.R.P(MD)No.1384 of 2019

¶18

I.A. No.103 of 2018 for impleading the vendors and the same was dismissed on 01.02.2019 by the Court below. While dismissing the said application, the Court below had categorically observed that the vendors need not to be impleaded as parties. Against the said order, the revision petitioner has preferred CRP No.357 of 2019, wherein, this Court had dismissed the aforesaid CRP by order, dated 22.02.2019 and upheld the order of the Court below. However, the liberty of examination of witnesses had never been stopped by the Court below as well as this Court. When such is the petition, only if the case is re-opened, the petitioner can examine the vendors as witnesses to prove his title to the suit schedule properties.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that now the matter was posted for arguments and at the final stage of the suit. Now, the revision petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision petition with a malafide intention to drag on the case proceedings, without any proper reason to reopen the case and to examine the witnesses. He has also filed an application in I.A. No.103 of 2018 to implead the vendors of the sale deed and the same was dismissed and against the same, the Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the revision petitioner in CRP No.357 of 2019 and the same was also dismissed and hence, there is no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard on both sides and perused the material documents available on record.

¶21

I.A. No.103 of 2018 was filed to implead the vendors of the sale deed, dated 27.07.2005 and the said application was dismissed on 01.02.2019 and against the aforesaid order, dated 01.02.2019 the revision petitioner has preferred CRP No.357 of 2019 and the same was also dismissed by order of this Court, dated 22.02.2019, by confirming the order of the Court below.

¶22

Under these circumstances, the instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 27.06.2019 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.217 of 2019 by the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi. On a perusal of the said application, he has narrated the reason for impleading the vendors by virtue of I.A. No.1 of 2019 and the same was dismissed. While dismissing the aforesaid IA, the Court below clearly observed and granted liberty to the petitioner herein to examine the vendors. Further, the relevant portion of the said Order is extracted hereunder:

¶23

“kDjhuh; jug;gpy; kDjhuh; ,e;j kDtpid jhth 1 kw;Wk; 25tJ mapl;l nrhj;ij 2k; gpujpthjpf;F fpiua Mtzk; vOjpf; nfhLj;j egh;fis jug;gpduhf Nrh;f ;ff ; Nfhhp ,.k. vz; js;Sgb nra;J Nghlg;gl ;l cj;juit vjph;j ;J r Puha ;T kD jhf;fy ; nra;jjpy; Njitahdhy; Nkw;fz ;l egh;fis rhl;rpahf https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tprhhpj;J nfhs;s f Poik e Pjpkd;wk ; mDkjp nfhLj;jjd;

¶24

2/4

¶25

C.R.P(MD)No.1384 of 2019

¶26

Nghpy; r Puha;T kD js;Sgb nra;j fhuzj;jpdhy; ,e;j kD jhf;fy ; nra;ag ;gl ;ljhf nrhy;ypAs;shh;. Mdhy; ,.k.vz;.1032018y; tpsk;Gif ghpfhuk; NfhUk; tof;fpy; Nkw;fz ;l egh;fs; mtrpa jug;gpdh; vd;gjhy; mth;fis Nrh;g ;gjhf nrhy;yptpl;L jw;NghJ mth;fis rhl;rpahf tprhuiz nra;aNtz;L ;k ; vd Nfhug;gl ;Ls ;sJ. kDjhuh; kDtpy; Nkw;fz ;l egh;fsplk; vjid Fwpj;j tprhuiz nra;ag ;glNtz;Lk ; vd;gjid njspthf Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy vdNt ,t;tof;fhdJ thJiuf;F jhf;fy ; nra;j gpwF ,.k.vz;.103-2018 jug;gpdh;fshf Nrh;f ;ff ;NfhUk; kD js;Sgb nra;ag ;gl ;ljhNyNa mth;fis rhl;rpahf tprhhpf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;W vt;tpj fhuzKk; ,y;yhky; kD jhf;fy ; nra;Js ;sJ Vw;Gilajhf mikatpy;iy. vdNt kD js;Sgb nra;tNj e Pjpf;F cfe;jjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd ,e;e P jpkd;wk ; fUJfpd;wJ”.

¶27

Therefore, while that being the case, the Court below should not have rejected the application for reopening the suit, though it was filed at the belated stage. The Court below should have allowed the applicant to examine the witnesses/vendors of the sale deed, dated 27.07.2005, which is the subject matter of the property in the suit and the plaintiff can establish the case. Without examining the vendors, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that whether the sale deed was properly executed or not. Unfortunately, the Court below dismissed the application to re-open the case. Therefore, the order, dated 27.06.2019 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.217 of 2019 is liable to set aside.

¶28

In view of the above, the instant Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the fair and decreetal Order, dated 27.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S. No.217 of 2019 by the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi is set aside. However, this Court directs the learned District Munsif, Lalgudi to dispose of the suit in O.S. No.217 of 2019, within a period of Four Months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

ksa To

¶32

1.The District Munsif Court, Lalgudi.

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

3/4

¶35

C.R.P(MD)No.1384 of 2019

¶36

COPY TO

¶37

The Record Keeper, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 COPIES)

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.K. HEMAKARTHIKEYAN, Advocate ( SR-90965[F] dated 03/10/2019 )

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.D. SELVANAYAGAM, Advocate ( SR-91113[F] dated 03/10/2019 )

¶40

C.R.P(MD)No.1384 of 2019 01.10.2019

¶41

DB(CO) TR(17.12.2019)4P 6C

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

4/4

Papayee v. R.Krishnamoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Papayee v. R.Krishnamoorthy

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

The Divisional Engineer Vs P.Mookan

Parvathy Vs M/S.Syed Shariat Finance

United India Insurance Company Vs Poosairaj

Paulammal, Vs Pagavathi

T.P.a.Alphonse Kavin Vs Anet Jeniliya Alias Malathi

Lakshmana Perumal, Vs Prema