Allowed

Premalatha v. Chinnaiya Thiyagarajan

Madras HC10 Oct 2022CRP/3539/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of an application for a reply statement under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. The revision bench held the trial judge's order unjustifiable and directed the trial court to allow the reply statement and dispose of the pending suit within three months.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in I.A. No. 186 of 2017 is set aside; petitioners directed to file reply statement; trial court to dispose case within three months on merits.

Premalatha Vs Chinnaiya Thiyagarajan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 3539 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.10.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.No. 3539 of 2017

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P. No. 16367 of 2017

¶9

Premalatha, W/o. Natesan

¶10

Natesan, S/o. Palaniappa Gounder ... Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Chinnaiya Thiyagarajan, S/o. Marappa Gounder

¶13

Maheswari, W/o. Elango

¶14

Sri Mariamman Siru Vivasayigal Neeratru Pasana Sangam, by its President, E.Samiappan

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of

¶17

India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.08.2017

¶18

passed in I.A.No. 186 of 2017 in O.S.No. 171 of 2011 on the file of Sessions

¶19

Court (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P. No. 3539 of 2017

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Premkumar for Mr.S.Senthil For Respondents : Mr. T.Padmanabhan for Mr.S.Kalyanaraman for R1

¶24

R2 & R3 – No appearance

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No. 171 of

¶27

2011 on the file of learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, which was filed for the relief of declaration and other consequential relief against the defendants.

¶28

During the pendency of suit proceedings, the plaintiffs filed an

¶29

application in I.A.No. 186 of 2017 under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to receive reply statement and the same was dismissed by the trial judge stating that the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for Revision Petitioners submitted

¶31

that the trial court failed to take note of the fact that for denial of allegation, the plaintiffs are entitled to file their reply statement, however, the trial was

¶32

2/5

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P. No. 3539 of 2017

¶35

begin and hence, immediately, they took steps, but the same was not appreciated by the trial court. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the trial court.

¶36

The learned counsel for respondents have raised their objections and prayed to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

Heard and considered rival submissions of learned counsel for

¶38

revision petitioners as well as respondents and perused the records.

¶39

On considering the submissions of both sides as well as on perusal of records, it reveals that the proof affidavit of P.W.1 was filed on 17.06.2017, at that time, the plaintiffs have rightly filed the application to receive their reply statement with regard to denial of allegations made by the 3^rd respondent in his written statement. Furthermore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and other consequential relief. So, to prove their title over the property, the plaintiffs are entitled to raise all their defence in the suit by way of filing reply statement. However, they have filed the said application

¶40

3/5

¶41

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

¶42

C.R.P. No. 3539 of 2017

¶43

at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1, but at the same time, they have to defend their claim. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the trial judge is unjustifiable one and the order passed in I.A.No.186 of 2017 by the trial court is set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs are directed to file their reply statement and thereafter, the trial court is directed to dispose the case within a period of three months on merits from the date of receipt of copy of this order because the suit is pending from the year of 2011 onwards. Both the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial proceedings before the trial court. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶44

10.10.2022

¶45

Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rpp To

¶46

Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal.

¶47

4/5

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P. No. 3539 of 2017

¶50

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶51

rpp

¶52

C.R.P.No. 3539 of 2017

¶53

10.10.2022

¶54

5/5

¶55

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

Premalatha v. Chinnaiya Thiyagarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premalatha v. Chinnaiya Thiyagarajan

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

A.Thuvarampathy Vs C.Navaneetha Krishnan

Vinayagam Vs The Inspector of Police

Ottakaran Vs The Inspector of Police

Pichandi Vs Alli Ammal

A.S.Periyasamy(Died) Vs Indira Gandhi

R.Gangadharan Vs Sagunthala