The Madras High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order refusing rejection of a plaint, finding no illegality. However, the court directed the trial court to dispose of the partition suit within six months.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed with a direction to dispose of the suit within six months.
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.
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.R.P(MD) No.34 of 2019 and C.M.P(MD) No.156 of 2019
M.Ramalingam ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Palaniammal
2.M.Natarajan
3.V.Balakrishnan
4.Pethalakshmi
5.Chellamuthu
6.K.Prema
7.D.Raviraja
8.B.Maheshwari
1/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
9.Selvi
9.Selvi 10.Chellappan 11.R.Jayalalitha 12.Sarojini 13.Loganayagi 14.Sornammal 15.S.Lakshmi 16.K.Murugavenkatesan 17.V.Harikrishnan 18.S.Mariappan 19.P.Sumathi 20.M.Savadamuthu 21.Ramayammal 22.Meenakshi (died) * *(Memo presented before the Court on 08.06.2023 is recorded as R22 died vide Court order dated 08.06.2023) 23.Sarasu ...Respondents
2/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2018 made in I.A.No.1519 of 2017 in O.S.No.362 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar For Respondents : Mr.N.Tamilmani – for R1
Unserved – for RR6 to 9, 12,
14 to 16 & 18
No appearance - for RR2 to 5, 10,
11, 13, 17, 19, 20 & 23
Died – for RR20 & 21
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order
3/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
dated 26.03.2018 made in I.A.No.1519 of 2017 in O.S.No.362 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
the first respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.362 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District, filed for partition and mesne profit.
petitioner and Mr.N.Tamilmani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the material available on record.
4/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
of Civil Procedure.
hearing both sides and on consideration of the material available on record, dismissed the said application by order, dated 26.03.2018 holding that the plaintiff many cause of action in the suit and hence, to ascertain the correctness of cause of action, it is necessary to allow the parties to adduce evidence. While dismissing the application, the trial Court also relying the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mayar (H.K) Ltd., and Others Vs. owners Parties, Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1828 , wherein it was held that so long as the plaint discloses some cause of action which requires determination by the Court, mere fact that in the opinion of the Judge, the plaintiff may not succeed, cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint.
trial Court while allowing the Interlocutory Application, this Court
5/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
is of the opinion that the order passed by the Court below is in accordance with law and there is no any illegality or infirmity in passing such order. As such this Court is not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the trial Court.
present the suit is at the stage of framing of issues. Considering the said fact in our considered view, it is appropriate to direct the learned Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, Dindigul District, to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months, as this suit is pertaining to the year 2015.
6/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
Petition is closed.
09.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM
To
The Additional District Munsif, Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
7/8
C.R.P(MD)No.34 of 2019
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
RM
C.R.P(MD) No.34 of 2019
09.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court order dismissing an application for rejection of plaint on the ground of no cause of action.
Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to dispose of a suit filed in 2015 expeditiously after six months.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mayar (H.K) Ltd., and Others Vs. owners Parties, Vessel M.V.Fortune Express and Others AIR 2006 SC 1828Referred¶47
M. Ramalingam
Palaniammal
M. Natarajan
V. Balakrishnan
Pethalakshmi
Chellamuthu
Battu Devanand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Battu Devanand
Parties & counsel
