The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by defendants challenging the trial court's refusal to reject a plaint. The court directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months due to witness examination pending.
Trial court directed to proceed with trial and dispose case within three months.
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.
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.2238 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.14055 of 2018
Petitioners 2 and 3 are rep. By their guardian/father M.Dharmalingam/ 1st petitioner
Vs.
1/7
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
3. Mr.A.M.Mummurthi,
S/o. M.C.Nachimuthu
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.1076 of
2017 in O.S.No. 791 of 2009 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Tiruppur
dated 12.01.2018.
For Petitioners : Mr. V.P.Sengottuvel For Respondents : Mr.S.Mukunth, for M/s. Saravhauman Asso. For R1 & R2
Mr. T.Sai Krishnan for R3 & R4
O R D E R
The revision petitioners are the defendants 3 to 7 in the suit filed in
O.S. No. 791 of 2009 on the file of II Addl. District Judge, Tiruppur, which
was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs herein for the relief of specific performance of the agreement dated 13.10.2008 against the defendants 1
and 2.
2/7
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
his legal heirs are impleaded as defendants 3 to 7 in the suit. The defendants denied the sale agreement by submitting the written statement and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default due to non-impleading of legal heirs of 2nd defendant. Subsequently, the suit was restored and after restoration of the suit, the defendants filed an application in I.A.No.1076 of 2017 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and under Sec.151 of C.P.C. praying to reject the plaint for the reason that during the pendency of proceedings, the plaintiffs made over the sale agreement along with original suit proceedings in favour of one Chandrasekar to that effect. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have no right to conduct the proceedings, but suppressing all these facts, they have filed an application to restore the suit in I.A.No. 1021 of 2011 along with condone delay application in I.A.No.219 of 2014, but the cause of action of that suit came to an end after the said made over. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have no right to conduct the suit proceedings. Furthermore, originally, the cause of action claimed by the plaintiffs as such is also not maintainable in law for the reason that alleged agreement is not true and valid one. Accordingly, they prayed to reject the plaint.
3/7
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
stating that on 24.02.2011 they gave a made over of the sale agreement in favour of one Chandrasekar and also permitted them to conduct the suit proceedings. Since the suit was dismissed for default, the plaintiffs have filed necessary applications before the trial court to implead the party, as such is maintainable in law and the same cannot be objected by the defendants after allowing the impleading application. Moreover, the plaintiffs filed an application to implead the legal heirs and the same was allowed by the trial court on hearing both sides. Apart from that, the restoration application along with condonation application filed by plaintiffs also allowed on merits by hearing the defendants. Therefore, after allowing all those applications, the defendants have no right to object the made over, and in order to drag on the proceedings, the defendants filed vexatious application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.
4/7
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
and not mere allegation, besides with regard to payment of court fee also to be adjudicated only on hearing both side evidence. So also, the cause of action in the suit, in total, the trial court held that all those allegations are to be decided is the mixed question of law and facts, which cannot be decided at this stage. Challenging the said findings, the defendants 3 to 7 preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
C.R.P. Proceedings, the witnesses were examined before the trial court and
the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are completed and the defendants witness yet to be cross-examined. The assignee, who obtained the very alleged made over agreement was examined and he was also cross-examined. In such circumstances, speedy trial is to be conducted by the trial court. Therefore, this court is not inclined to pass any order, however, already what are all the defence took in Order 7 Rule 11 application was already raised by the defendants before the trial court. Furthermore, all the issues, which are raised in these applications are subject to mixed question of law and on facts as it was rightly considered by the trial court, which needs no interference.
5/7
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the defendants to raise all their objections before the trial court. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
02.12.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp
To
II Addl. District Judge, Tiruppur.
6/7
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P. No.2238 of 2018
02.12.2022
7/7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in not rejecting the plaint for non-applicability of the agreement and lack of right to conduct proceedings.
M.Dharmalingam and others
C.Easwaran and others
T.V. Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
