Dismissed

Saravanavelu v. Pazhaniyandi(Died)

Madras HC5 Dec 2022CRP/228/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions challenging orders of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, which allowed third parties as necessary parties and extended time to reopen a long-pending partition suit. The Court found the trial court's actions reasonable.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Saravanavelu Vs Pazhaniyandi(Died) — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.Nos.228 & 229 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

CRP.No.228 of 2015; Saravanavelu

..Petitioner

Vs.

Pazhaniyandi (Died)

1.Dhandapani

2.Anandhavel

¶13

3.Poosalingam

¶14

4.Sivaguru

¶15

5.Shanmughanandam

¶16

6.Vedharathinam

¶17

7.Chandra

¶18

8.Kasthuri

¶19

9.Kanngi

¶20

10.Padmavathi

¶21

11.Kadirvel 12.K.S.S.Moorthy 13.K.Thiruselvam 14.K.Bharath 15.Amudha Panneelselvam

¶22

16.Subhashini

¶23

..Respondents

¶24

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in I.A.109 of 2014 in I.A.No.249 of 2008 in

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

1/6

¶27

CRP Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶28

O.S.No.17 of 1991 by order dated 07.10.2014.

¶29

CRP.No.229 of 2015; Saravanavelu

..Petitioner

Vs.

Pazhaniyandi (Died)

1.Nagamuthu 2.Shanmughanandan

3.Vedharathinam

4.Chandra

5.Kasthuri

6.Kannagi (Died)

7.Padmavathi (Died)

8.Kadirvel 9.K.S.S.Moorthy 10.K.Thiruselvam 11.K.Bharath 12.Amudha Panneerselvam 13.Subhashini..Respondents

¶40

¶41

(In CRP.No.228 of 2015)

¶42

For Petitioner : Mr.R.M.D.Nazarullah For Respondents

¶43

For R1 to 4 : Mr.T.S.Baskaran for C.B.Vishnudasan

¶44

For R5 & 13 : Ms.G.Keerthana for Mr.V.Jaiharisudan

¶45

2/6

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

For R6 to 12 : Given up For R14 to 16 : Given up

¶48

CRP Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶49

(In CRP.No.229 of 2015)

¶50

For Petitioner : Mr. R.M.D.Nazarullah

¶51

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.T.S.Baskaran for Mr.C.B.Vishnudasan

¶52

For R2 & 10 : Ms.G.Keerthana for Mr.V.Jaiharisudan

¶53

For R3 to 9 : Given up For R11 to 13 : Givern up

¶54

COMMON ORDER

¶55

CRP.No.228 of 2015 has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal

¶56

order dated 07.10.2014 in I.A.109 of 2014 in I.A.No.249 of 2008 in O.S.No.17

¶57

of 1991 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

¶58

CRP.No.229 of 2015 has been file to set aside the fair and decreetal

¶59

order 17.09.2014 in I.A.108 of 2014 in I.A.No.248 of 2008 in O.S.No.17 of

¶60

1991 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge.

¶61

Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

3/6

¶64

CRP Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶65

The petitioner and the respondent Pazhaniyandi in both the petitions are plaintiffs in the suit filed by them for partition. The said suit was decreed on 18.03.1993 and thereafter, they filed a petition for final decree. Pending the final decree, the third parties filed applications to implead themselves as parties in the suit in I.A.Nos.248 and 249 of 2008 and both were allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs in the suit filed CRPs before this Court in CRP.Nos.1601 and 1602 of 2010. This Court by an order dated 20.12.2013, dismissed the said CRPs and concluded that the proposed parties are necessary parties to the suit.

¶66

Thereafter, the proposed parties filed petitions to enlarge the period to file a re-open petitions in I.A.Nos.108 and 109 of 2014 and both the petitions were allowed by the trial Court. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner before this Court in these revisions.

¶67

The suit for partition is of the year 1991 and it is pending for a period of 21 years. When this Court allowed the proposed parties as necessary parties

¶68

to the suit, the trial Court rightly allowed the applications filed to enlarge the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶69

CRP Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶70

time to re-open the suit. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below.

¶71

In fine, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶72

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶73

07.12.2022

¶74

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To

¶75

The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

5/6

¶78

CRP Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶79

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶80

ata

¶81

CRP.Nos.228 & 229 of 2015

¶82

07.12.2022

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

6/6

Saravanavelu v. Pazhaniyandi(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanavelu v. Pazhaniyandi(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited Vs Mr.Selvakumar

Venkulakshmi Vs Kaviyarasu

S.Maragatham Vs N.Chandran

St.Georges Cathedral Trust Vs Rev.S.Immanuel Devakadatcham

Vasanthakumari Anbalagan Vs Tamil Nadu Industrial

Varadharajan Vs Nagammal