This order dismissed the petitioner's civil revision petition challenging the Trial Court's rejection of an application to withdraw a partition suit with liberty to file a fresh one, holding the affidavit failed to meet legal requirements.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.10.2020
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN C.R.P(PD)No. 2494 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 15249 of 2018
Chinnammal ...Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Sadhasivam
2.Selvakumar
3.Sibidevan
4.A.S.Murugan
5.K.Vivekanandan
6.Sundaramurthy
7.Nallammal
8.S.Pushpavathi ..Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Bhavani, dated 27.02.2018 in I.A.No.17 of 2018 in O.S.No.134 of 2012.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.Valliappan For Respondents : Mrs.Zeenath Begum for R1 to R4 R5 to R8 – No Appearance O R D E R
The plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2012 has come up with this revision, challenging the order of the Trial Court made in I.A.No. 17 of 2018, an application for leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
of the suit properties, the plaintiff would claim that he would be entitled 3/16th share in the 6th item.
` Though the counsel for the petitioner would make a serious attempt to project the case of non-inclusion of certain properties which necessiated to application, the affidavit filed in support of the application before the Trial Court does not clearly say so. The details of the properties that have been omitted to be included have also not been set out in the affidavit. Unless the Court is satisfied about the existence
of the grounds, it cannot grant leave under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. None of the requirements of Order 23 Rule 1(3) have been specified by the petitioner. The affidavit filed in support of this application is vague and it does not merit acceptance. I therefore, do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. This civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kkn
To:
The Subordinate Judge,
Bhavani.
+1cc to Mr.P.Valliappan Advocate SR.NO.34651
C.R.P(PD)No. 2494 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 15249 of 2018
SR CO
SDR 16/12/2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of an application for leave to withdraw a suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit on the same cause of action should succeed under Order
Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Order 23 Rule 1(3) CPC by alleging non-inclusion of properties without specifying them in the supporting affidavit.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Chinnammal
Sadhasivam
Selvakumar
Sibidevan
A.S.Murugan
K.Vivekanandan
R. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
