Disposed

P.a.Jannath Kani v. K.Baskar

Madras HC1 Apr 2021CRP(MD)/635/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 directed the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, to dispose of pending interim applications (I.A.No.97 of 2020) and the underlying partition suit (O.S.No.19 of 1996 of 1996) within four weeks to ensure ends of justice given the prolonged delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam to dispose of I.A.No.97 of 2020 and O.S.No.19 of 1996 on merits within four weeks.

P.a.Jannath Kani Vs K.Baskar — Partition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD) No.635 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:01.04.2021 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU C.R.P.(MD) No.635 of 2021

¶4

P.A.Jannath Kani 1.K.Baskar	... Petitioner/1^stRespondent /1st Petitioner/1^stPlaintiff -Vs-
2.K.Ramesh Kumar	...Respondents 1, 2/Petitioners /Third parties/Third parties
3.P.A.Noorjahan	...3rd Respondent/2^ndRespondent /2^ndPetitioner/2^ndPlaintiff
4.P.S.Jamruth Begam 5.Hajeeran Beevi 6.Ameer Beevi 7.Shahul Hameed 8.Nihara
9.Rajendran	...Respondents 3 to 9/Respondents 3 to 8 /Respondents 1 to 6/Defendants 1 to 6

¶5

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the lower Court to dispose the application in I.A.No.97 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Subramanian

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to dispose the application in I.A.No.97 of 2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam within the time span as fixed by this Court.

¶9

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 1996 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam against the respondents/defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, a preliminary decree was passed on 08.07.2003. Subsequently, the same was modified by this Court in A.S.No.336 of 2004. In this circumstance, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2005 to pass a final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure and divide the property, in which, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court below and after https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

1/3

¶11

C.R.P.(MD) No.635 of 2021

¶12

inspection, the Advocate Commissioner has filed his report. In the meanwhile, at the instigation of some third parties, the respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed I.A.No.97 of 2020 to implead themselves as parties and contended that while measuring the suit property, the Advocate Commissioner has wrongly annexed the adjacent land belonged to them and hence, they are necessary parties to the above proceedings and they have also filed I.A.No.144 of 2020 to receive additional document. The grievance of the petitioner is that the final decree application is pending for the past 15 years. Though the petitioner has filed her counter in I.A.No.97 of 2020, the respondents 1 and 2 are deliberately prolonging the matter by taking unnecessary adjournments. Hence, the petitioner prays for early disposal of I.A.No.97 of 2020.

¶13

Since this Civil Revision Petition is filed for early disposal of the Suit, as no adverse order is going to be passed, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

¶14

4.Perusal of record shows that the suit is of the year 1996 and the same is pending even after expiry of more than 25 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the final decree application, third party claiming right over the subject property cannot be impleaded. The learned Subordinate Judge has to see whether interim applications filed are vexatious or not and to dispose of the suit at an early date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the final decree application in I.A.No.2 of 2005 is pending for the past 15 years, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met by directing the Court below to dispose of the I.A.No.97 of 2020 and O.S.No.19 of 1996 within a time frame. Without adverting to the merits of the case, a direction is issued to the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam to dispose I.A.No.97 of 2020 and O.S.No.19 of 1996 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶16

Assistant Registrar (RTI ACT)

¶17

// True Copy //

¶18

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

msa

¶20

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶21

2/3

¶22

C.R.P.(MD) No.635 of 2021

¶23

¶24

1.The Additional Subordinate Judge Kumbakonam.

¶25

2.The Principal District Judge Tiruchirapalli District.

¶26

Copy to

¶27

The Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-15066[F] dated 01/04/2021 )

¶29

C.R.P.(MD) No.635 of 2021

01.04.2021

KUN(CO)

KB(11.05.2021) 3P 5C

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

¶34

3/3

P.a.Jannath Kani v. K.Baskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Jannath Kani v. K.Baskar

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

Mohammed Rafik, Vs J.Roopa

Raju Vs N.Ramdoss

S.Sivasankar, H-1, Vaigai Block Vs D.Uma

Tmt.R.Kalaiselvi Vs K.Sathiyamurthy

P. Murugesan, Vs Sundaresan

Dr.R.Russel Raj Vs M.S.Apoorva, I.A.S.