This Civil Revision Petition challenged the dismissal of an application to exclude a defendant from the suit. The court held the revision sprawl and directed the trial court to dispose of the case within three months to prevent undue delay.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; the trial court is directed to dispose of the 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.3167 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.3167 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.16052 of 2016
Vs.
1/6
C.R.P. No.3167 of 2016
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Sec. 115 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the order and decretal order dated 05.03.2016 made in I.A.No. 580 of 2015 in O.S.No.252 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam, Vellore District.
For Petitioners : Ms.R.Saritha for
Mr.R.Karunagaran For Respondents : Mr.G.Jeremiah
for R2 to R9
Mr. T.E. Ekambaram for R10
R1 – died
2/6
C.R.P. No.3167 of 2016
O R D E R
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.580 of 2015 in O.S.No.252 of 2010 on the file of learned District Munsif, Arakkonam, which was filed by the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs to amend the pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.
3/6
C.R.P. No.3167 of 2016
they have filed the application about five years after filing of the written statement. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
now the trial is also begin and on the side of plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined. Furthermore, as per the averment in para 7 of the plaint pleadings, 9th defendant also participated in the alleged sale transaction. In the said circumstances, he cannot be deleted during the pendency of proceedings.
petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that 9th defendant is only a broker and inadvertently, he was implicated in the proceedings.
4/6
C.R.P. No.3167 of 2016
defendant should not be deleted from the part of the proceedings. So, the reason assigned by the learned trial judge is acceptable one.
findings rendered by the learned trial judge in I.A.No. 582/2015 is confirmed. However, since the suit is pending from the year of 2010, 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. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp
To
District Munsif, Arakkonam.
5/6
C.R.P. No.3167 of 2016
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rpp
C.R.P. No.3167 of 2016
02.12.2022
6/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiffs can delete a defendant from the proceedings after five years during the pendency of the suit.
Whether the trial court rightly dismissed the application to drop the 9th defendant.
Whether the trial court is directed to dispose of the pending suit within three months.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Govindan
Mrs.G.Soundhari
Mrs.S.Ravarani
Mr.S.Venu
Mrs. Poongothai
Mrs.S.Baby
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
