Allowed

Periyammal v. Ammasi

Madras HC7 Sept 2023CRP/2790/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging a judgment dismissing an appeal against an Order 9 Rule 7 CPC application. Conversion of revision. The appeal was held a nullity as appeal is not maintainable under Order 9 Rule 7. Revision allowed. Petitioners given chance to object to the Advocate Commissioner's Report on manner of division only.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; appellate order and Order 9 Rule 7 application order set aside; petitioners granted opportunity to file objections to the Advocate Commissioner's Report and state the

Periyammal Vs Ammasi — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07.09.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.18287 of 2019

¶8

Periyammal

¶9

Palaniammal

¶10

Vedakkal

¶11

Chinnathayee

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

Vs.

¶14

Ammasi ... Respondent

¶15

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in CMA.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari which confirmed the order passed in I.A.No.636 of 2017 in I.A.No.228 of 2014 in O.S.No.104 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari.

¶16

For Petitioners : Ms.Monalisa for R. Marudhachalamurthy

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in C.M.A.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari confirming the order passed in I.A.No.636 of 2017 in I.A.No.228 of 2014 in O.S.No.104 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankari.

¶22

The suit in O.S.No.104 of 1994 is filed for partition. The said partition suit ended in a decree on 25.08.2000. The second defendant aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal in A.S.No.22 of 2001 and the same was partly allowed granting a variation in the preliminary decree. The plaintiff put the preliminary decree into operation by filing an application for final decree in I.A.No.228 of 2014.

¶23

2.2 In the meantime, the second defendant passed away and her legal representatives were brought on record. After being brought on record, they remained ex parte. Therefore, to set aside the ex parte order in I.A.No.228 of 2014, they filed an application in I.A.No.636 of 2017 under Order 9 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was dismissed by an

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019

¶27

order of the learned trial Judge dated 21.06.2018. Instead of filing a revision, an appeal seems to have been presented before the Subordinate Judge, Sankari in C.M.A.No.13 of 2018. The same was dismissed on 27.03.2019, against which the present civil revision petition has been filed.

¶28

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have carefully gone through the records and perused the orders of the Courts below.

¶29

4. At the outset, I have to state that an appeal against Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is not maintainable at all. An appeal is maintainable only against the dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. If an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC is dismissed, the remedy is only by way of a revision. Unfortunately, it seems that the Court below had entertained the appeal, and had dismissed it. I do not want to non suit the defendant only on the ground that they had preferred an appeal in a case where appeal is not maintainable. Such an order will only prolong the litigation enabling the petitioner to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.636 of 2017.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019

¶33

5. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the suit and also

¶34

the final decree proceedings, I am of the view that this revision be converted

¶35

as a revision against the order passed in I.A.No.636 of 2017.

¶36

The Court, while interpreting Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, has to give a much more liberal interpretation than at the time of treating an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. Here is a case, where the defendant has passed away and the legal heirs are litigating for a share to be allotted in their favour. At this stage, if they are asked to leave the Court proceedings, then there is a possibility that the division might not be fair. An opportunity should be granted to the petitioners to agitate as to the fair manner of division. At the same time, the Court below should be cautious that the petitioners do not place submissions which would tend to reopen the preliminary decree. The preliminary decree having been appealed against in A.S.No.22 of 2001 and the said judgment and decree, dated 07.09.2004 having attained finality, the petitioners will not be permitted to make submissions on the validity of the preliminary decree. However, I feel the petitioners should be given an opportunity in order to agitate as to whether

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019

¶40

the manner of division that might be suggested by the Advocate Commissioner is fair and equitable.

¶41

Taking that into consideration-

¶42

(i) The Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The order passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2018 on the file of Subordinate Court, Sankari is set aside on the ground of it is a nullity since the appeal is not maintainable.

¶44

(iii) The order passed in I.A.No.636 of 2017, dated 21.06.2018 is set aside.

¶45

(iv) The Court below shall grant an opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections to the Advocate Commissioner's Report and make submissions on the manner of division alone and to state whether the same is fair and equitable.

¶46

(v) The entire exercise must be completed on or before 28.02.2024 and a report should be submitted before this Court.

¶47

(vi) Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶48

07.09.2023

¶49

Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No AT/MKN-II

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019

¶53

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶54

AT/MKN-II

¶55

¶56

The Subordinate Judge, Sankari.

¶57

The District Munsif Court, Sankari.

¶58

C.R.P.No.2790 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.18287 of 2019

¶59

07.09.2023

¶60

6/6

¶61

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

Periyammal v. Ammasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Periyammal v. Ammasi

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

N.Gothandaraman Vs E.Balaji

S.Ravichandran Vs Mrs.Sarala

K.Duraiswamy(Died) Vs Murugavalli

Jagadesh Vs a.Gandhi

G.Muniappa Naidu Vs Vanaja

The National Ins.Co.Ltd Vs Ellammal