This revision petition challenged an order dismissing an interlocutory application concerning compensation for suit property. The High Court set aside the order to mandate a joint hearing and disposal of the application and the pending first appeal.
Interlocutory Application revived to be heard along with the pending First Appeal; impugned order set aside.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 19.4.2021.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2931 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.18973 and 26703 of 2019
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and Decretal order dated 9.7.2019 passed in I.A.No.159 of 2016 in A.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Chandraprabu
2
For R9 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for M/s.AL.Ganthimathi
ORDER
The petitioners in I.A.No.159 of 2016 which had been filed in A.S.No.15 of 2012 are the revision petitioners herein.
3
I.A.No.159 of 2011 since they were aggrieved by the fact that the 10th respondent in the Appeal, who had, by his own Application was made a party/respondent in the Appeal, had interfered by receiving the compensation amount towards a portion of the suit property which had
been acquired by the Government. The plaintiff’s grievance is that having had the suit decreed in their favour, which consequently gave them right of entitlement to seek the compensation amount, but, however, the 10th respondent in the Appeal appears to have received the said compensation. Therefore, they filed the Application calling upon the 10th respondent to deposit the said amount, which he had received, into court. The learned Judge had passed an order on 9.7.2019. This order is now under challenge in the present revision petition.
merits of either one of the contesting parties. The learned Judge had dismissed the said Application but in the course of the order, had expressed more than once that it would have been very convenient had he been permitted to hear both the Interlocutory Application and the First Appeal and pass orders in both at the same time.
4
the Interlocutory Application and the First Appeal can be addressed by the learned counsels for the parties together and be heard by him together. In fact, he wanted to pass a common order in the Interlocutory Application and the First Appeal.
5
and I am confident that both of them will take the First Appeal forward.
disposed of reviving the said Interlocutory Application to be heard alongwith the pending First Appeal. No order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
19.4.2021.
Index: Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
ssk.
To
1. Additional District Court,
Kancheepuram District at Chengalpet.
2. The Sub Registrar,
Thiruporur,
Chengalpattu District.
6
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Ssk.
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2931 of 2019
19.4.2021.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dismissing the interlocutory application regarding compensation should be set aside to allow a joint hearing with the first appeal.
Whether the lower court should set aside its order merely to revive the interlocutory application for a conjunctive hearing.
M.O. Yasin
A. Sulaiha
Y. Shamim Sadat
M.O. Ibrahim (Died)
E. Foroz Khan
M.K. Noor Mohammed
C.V. Karthikeyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
