Dismissed

S.Jegathambal v. P.Saravana Muthupanidan

Madras HC20 Sept 2023CRP(MD)/1635/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging existence of a suit on grounds of forgery was dismissed. Court held revisional jurisdiction not for trying evidence. Added direction for expeditious disposal of underlying suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Trial court directed to dispose suit within six months. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

S.Jegathambal Vs P.Saravana Muthupanidan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8545 of 2019

¶7

S.Jegathambal : Petitioner/2^nd Defendant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.P.Saravana Muthupandian : 1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶10

2.P.Kalimuthu : 2nd Respondent/Plaintiff

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.160 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.V.S.Karthi for R1

¶14

: Mr.S.Sukumar for R2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to

¶17

strike off the plaint in O.S.No.160 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a mortgage deed, dated 19.06.2008 was fabricated, from the stamp paper

¶22

purchased on future date qua on 29.04.2018. This factum could be established through the reply received from the District Treasury, under Right to Information Act. Therefore, contended that, the very suit is liable to be struck off as the suit is the result of forgery.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the very suit is abuse of process of law and liable to be strike off from the file of the Court below. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only to defeat the right of the petitioner, the respondents and their siblings have created such fabricated document and attempting to

¶24

thwart the right of the petitioner, which would accrue under the D.V. Act. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision.

¶25

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the document which is referred by the petitioner has to be proved before the Court below and that under the revisional jurisdiction the dispute with regard to the document can not be gone into, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019

¶29

I have given my anxious consideration to either side

¶30

submission.

¶31

The sum and substance of submissions of the learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner is that, the alleged mortgage deed which is the basis for the suit for injunction is the forged document, and that the mortgage deed has been fabricated from the stamp paper purchased in the year 2018 with anti date, qua dated 19.06.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also invite the attention in respect of the reply from the District Treasury under Right to Information Act, vide reply, dated 27.03.2019. Wherein there is a reference that the said, Sub Registrar of Madurai South, has been bifurcated from the District Treasury, only on 29.04.2018. Therefore, contended that on the date of purchase of stamp paper, no Sub Registrar of Madurai South was exist. Through this, he submits that on the face of it, the forgery of the mortgage deed could be established. But, this Court does not want to go into the merits of the said submission.

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019

¶36

This Court is of the view that unless the Right to Information Act reply is proved by way of supporting documents and by way of examining the witnesses, this Court can not prejudge under the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court is of the view that based upon the reply of the Right to Information Act, the plaint in O.S.No.160 of 2018 cannot be strike off. Therefore, there is no merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

However, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2018, this Court deems it appropriate to give direction to the Court below to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶38

In the result, the instant Civil Revision petition stands dismissed . Further, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶39

20.09.2023

¶40

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No das

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019

¶44

¶45

1.The District Munsif Court, Madurai.

¶46

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019

¶50

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶51

das

¶52

C.R.P(MD)No.1635 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8545 of 2019

¶53

20.09.2023

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

S.Jegathambal v. P.Saravana Muthupanidan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jegathambal v. P.Saravana Muthupanidan

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

Jeyarathnam,S/O.Appadurai Vs Samuel Nickson,S/O.Jebaveeran

S.Rajagopal Vs M.Asaithambi

Chithambaram Vs Athinaryanaperumal

N.Rajamani, S/O.Nataraja Vs P.Nallusamy

A.R.Hamsini Vs P.Prasanth Krishna

Arjunraj Vs Vijayakumari