Dismissed

Dakshinamurthi - Died v. Vasantha

Madras HC2 Nov 2022CRP/4093/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the registration of a suit filed 2296 days after the limitation period. The revisioner contended admission without condonation application was erroneous. The Court held that since the defendent raised the limitation objection in the written statement before filing the revision, the trial court correctly registered the suit and the revi

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order of trial court confirming suit registration confirmed; liberty granted to defendant to raise defenses during trial.

Dakshinamurthi - Died Vs Vasantha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. No. 4093 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.No.4093 of 2012 and M.P. No. 1 of 2012

¶7

Dakshinamurthi (died)

¶8

Prabavathy, S/o. Late Dakshinamurthi

¶9

Shenemuga Priya, D/o. Late Dakshinamurthi

¶10

Rajalakshmy D/o. Late Dakshinamurthi

¶11

D.Sundaresh @ Santhosh, S/o. Late Dakshinamurthi

¶12

(Petitioners 2 to 5 brought on record as LRs of deceased sole Petitioner vide court order dated 15.07.2019 made in CMP. Nos.13691, 13693 & 13698/2019)

¶13

... Petitioners

¶14

Vs.

¶15

Vasantha, W/o. Kathavarayan ... Respondent

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P. No. 4093 of 2012

¶19

PRAYER:

¶20

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

¶21

India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 27.04.2010 in unnumbered I.A.No. of 2010 in unnumbered O.S.No. of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Puducherry.

¶22

For Petitioners : M/s.K.S.Elangovan Associates For Respondent : Mr.T.M.Naveen

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Dakshinamurthi, the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 81 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Judge, Puducherry. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of suit property against the defendant.

¶25

The defendant also filed written statement in the month of January

¶26

Thereafter, he preferred this Civil Revision Petition contending that the plaint was presented with the delay of 2296 days and without annexing the application to condone the delay. But, the trial court without observing

¶27

2/6

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P. No. 4093 of 2012

¶30

the same, erroneously ordered to take the suit on file. Accordingly, the suit was numbered as O.S.No. 81 of 2010 on the file of Sub-Judge, Puducherry. Challenging the said order, the defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶31

The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners submitted that the trial court ought not to have taken the suit on file, since because the plaintiff not filed the application to condone the said delay along with the plaint and not explained properly for about 2296 days. But, now the fact reveals as stated by the plaintiff's counsel that the suit is taken on file and in that suit, written statement was filed by the defendant much prior to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition. Though the plaintiff not proceeded to register the suit, he has not raised his objection much earlier at the time of filing of written statement. Having filed written statement and the suit was taken on file, now, he raised objection, as such is highly belated one.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P. No. 4093 of 2012

¶35

Admittedly, the suit is riped for trial and since this Civil Revision Petition was filed, it is pending from the year of 2012. Furthermore, on perusal of written statement, which is annexed in one of typed set of papers reveals that in the written statement, in para 5, the defendant raised objection with regard to numbering the suit. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to raise his objections before the trial court because he has already raised the same in the written statement. Therefore, lapse of procedure should not be appreciated, otherwise, the very right to defend the case of the party would be defeated. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of property and approached the court to declare the title. Thus, he is entitled to raise all his defence by adducing oral and documentary evidence during trial. If he is not given a chance to defend the case, his valuable right will be defeated.

¶36

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the trial judge in I.A. unnumbered of 2010 is confirmed. Liberty is granted to the defendant to raise all his defence before the trial court

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P. No. 4093 of 2012

¶40

during trial. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶41

02.11.2022

¶42

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking/Non-speaking order rpp To Sub-Judge, Puducherry.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

C.R.P. No. 4093 of 2012

¶46

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶47

rpp

¶48

C.R.P.No.4093 of 2012

¶49

02.11.2022

¶50

6/6

¶51

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

Dakshinamurthi - Died v. Vasantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dakshinamurthi - Died v. Vasantha

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

Nainmull Jain Vs Madhu

K.Ramasamy Vs Asst Commissioner

M/S.Sms Computer House Vs Margadarsi Chits Private Ltd.

Ramasamy Vs V.V. Palanisamy

Pappayammal Vs Kunjammal

T.S.Sridharan Vs P.Suvarna