Allowed

Ayyalsamy Nayakkar (Died) v. Ayyappa Naicker (Died)

Madras HC19 Oct 2022CRP(MD)/267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allowed Civil Revision petitions challenging the dismissal of applications to reopen evidence. The High Court set aside the lower court order, permitted production of additional documents, and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months upon respondent counsel representing no objection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner permitted to produce additional document; suit to be disposed within two months.

Ayyalsamy Nayakkar (Died) Vs Ayyappa Naicker (Died) — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020 and CMP(MD) No.1582 of 2020

¶7

Ayyalsamy Nayakkar (Died) Devarajammal (Died)

¶8

1.Ananth 2.Suresh 3.Vanitha ... Petitioners in both CRPs Vs

¶9

Ayyappa Naicker (Died)

¶10

1.Perumalsamy 2.Ramamoorthy 3.Sarguruammal ... Respondents in both CRPs

¶11

Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 10.01.2020 made in I.A.Nos. 4 & 5 of 2019 in O.S.No.70 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Andipatti.

¶12

1/5

¶13

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

¶14

CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel For R1 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R2 & R3 : No appearance (In both CRPs)

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the

¶18

order passed by the learned District Munsif, Andipatti in I.A.Nos. 4 & 5 of 2019 in O.S.No.70 of 1996, dated 10.01.2020.

¶19

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶20

that the suit in O.S.No.70 of 1996 has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs as against the petitioners/defendants for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the cultivating tenants of the suit properties and consequential relief directing the defendants to deliver

¶21

the suit properties to the plaintiffs. When the suit is posted for arguments, the petitioners /defendants have filed two interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2019 to reopen the defendants' side evidence for marking of documents through the proposed 18^th defendant and to receive the order of this Court in W.P.No.13367 of 2009, dated 2/5

¶22

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

¶23

CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020

¶24

01.04.2011 as additional document to the suit. The trial Court dismissed the applications by recording the objections raised by the plaintiffs and also held that those applications have been filed only to protract the suit proceedings. Aggrieved over the same, these Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

¶25

3.Today(19.10.2022), when these matters are taken up for

¶26

hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he is not having any serious objections for allowing these Civil Revision Petitions. However, he submitted that the suit is of the year 1996 and in view of pendency of these Civil Revision Petitions, the trial is still pending. Therefore, he sought for a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial and dispose of the suit within a reasonable time.

¶27

4.In view of the above representation of the learned counsel

¶28

for the respondents that he is not having any objections, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the learned District 3/5

¶29

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

¶30

CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020

¶31

Munsif, Andipatti in I.A.Nos. 4 & 5 of 2019 in O.S.No.70 of 1996, dated, 10.01.2020 are hereby set aside. The learned District Munsif, Andipatti shall permit the petitioner to produce additional document and shall dispose of the suit in O.S.No.70 of 1996, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

19.10.2022 Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn To The District Munsif Court, Andipatti.

¶33

4/5

¶34

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

¶35

CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020

¶36

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶37

vrn

¶38

Common Order made in CRP(PD)(MD)Nos.267 & 268 of 2020 and CMP(MD) No.1582 of 2020

¶39

19.10.2022

¶40

5/5

¶41

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

Ayyalsamy Nayakkar (Died) v. Ayyappa Naicker (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyalsamy Nayakkar (Died) v. Ayyappa Naicker (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

Arulmigu Muniswaran Temple Vs Innaci

R.Kannan Vs M.Suresh

Sathiyamoorthy (Died) Vs K.Vijayan

Gopalakrishnan, Vs Prabakar, S/o.Sathiyaseelan

The Vilavancode Panchayat Vs C.Sukumar

Rajarethinam, Vs Chinnappan (Died)