The Madras High Court Bench dismissed the review application filed against an order allowing a civil revision petition. The court held the plaintiffs' claim for declaration was barred by limitation as the defendant had denied their title in the written statement, with no error apparent in the original order.
The review application is dismissed with no costs.
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.
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.11.2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.5876 of 2022
1.Kathirvel
2.Alagiriraj
... Review Applicants
Vs.
1.Muthusamy
2.Alagirisamy
3.Duraisamy @ Alagarsamy
4.Nagarajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to review the order dated 10.03.2022 made in CRP(MD)No.183 of 2022 and confirm the fair and decreetal order dated 22.10.2021 made in IA.No.1 of 2021 in OS.No.214 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
For Review Applicants : Mr.A.Arumugam
For Respondent : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for No.1 Mr.Thirunavukkarasu For Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : No appearance
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
ORDER
The review application is filed under section 114 r/w Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC as against the order dated 10.03.2022 made in CRP(MD)No.183 of 2022.
2.This review application is filed by the review
applicants/ respondents in CRP(MD)No.183 of 2022, which was disposed of by this Court on 10.03.2022. The said civil revision petition was filed by the first respondent as against the fair and decreetal order passed
in IA.No.1 of 2021 in OS.No.214 of 2009, dated 22.10.2021. The suit was filed by these review applicants/ plaintiffs for the relief of injunction. Subsequently the plaintiffs have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in IA.No.1 of 2021 to amend
the relief for declaration also and the same was allowed by the trial Court with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. Challenging the said order, the civil revision petition was filed, which was allowed by this Court. Aggrieved over the same, the present review application is filed.
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
3.This Court while disposing of the said civil revision petition took note of the proceedings in OS.No.202 of 2009 and written statement filed by the respondents in the suit in OS.No.214 of 2009 and held that the plaintiffs are not permitted to file the application in IA.No.1 of 2021 since the claim was barred by limitation. Now the review application is filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in the civil revision petition that the Court has relied on documents, which were not placed before the Court and the plaint in OS.No.202 of 2009 and the written statement were not placed before the Court. However, the court has relied on those documents and arrived at a conclusion.
4.The learned Counsel for the review applicants
submits that this Court allowed the civil revision petition based on the plaint in OS.No.202 of 2009 and the written statement filed by the respondents in OS.No.214 of 2009 and held that IA.No.1 of 2021 was barred by limitation, therefore, these plaintiffs are not entitled to amend the plaint after a period of three years when
the respondents have denied their title in the written statement. In the absence of the documents being produced
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
before the Court, placing reliance upon those documents is not permissible in law.
5.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits
that this review application is filed through a different counsel on change of vakalath and the typed set of papers filed in the civil revision petition is not annexed in
the review application. The Court has relied on the written statement filed in OS.No.214 of 2009 and the same
is placed before this Court in the typed set of papers
and wherein, there is a specific denial of the title of
the plaintiffs and knowing that the application in
IA.No.1 of 2021 was filed after a period of 10 years and therefore, it is barred by Article 58 of the Limitation
Act and therefore, the civil revision petition was allowed. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the orders of this Court.
6.Heard the learned on either side and perused the materials placed on record.
7.The review applicants/ plaintiffs have filed the suit in OS.No.214 of 2009 for the relief of injunction.
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
Pending the suit, they have filed an interlocutory application in IA.No.1 of 2021 to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration. The first respondent / third defendant has claimed that he has already filed a suit for partition denying title of the property in OS.No.202 of 2009. By referring the same, he has also filed written statement in the year 2010. The written statement was filed on 12.03.2010 by referring earlier suit filed by the respondents for partition in OS.No.202 of 2009 and counter was also filed in IA.No.1 of 2021, but the review applicants have not denied the averments by filing their response. Therefore this Court relying on the materials placed before this Court allowed the civil revision petition. The claim of the petitioners are barred by limitation act, in view of the provisions under Article 58 of the Limitation Act and there is no error apparent in the orders of this court and therefore, this review application is dismissed. No costs.
01.11.2022
Internet : yes/No dsk To
The District Munsif, Periyakulam.
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI., J
dsk
REV.APLC(MD)No.101 of 2022
01.11.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review court can rely on documents that were not explicitly placed before it during the earlier proceeding.
Whether the amendment of plaint for declaration is barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act due to the denial of title in the written statement.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kathirvel
Alagiriraj
Muthusamy
Alagirisamy
B.Pugalandhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
