Dismissed

Ravikumar v. Guruvammal

Madras HC13 Dec 2023CRP(MD)/653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order allowing defendants to reopen a partition suit for evidence adduction after a 10-year lapse. The High Court found no perversity or infirmity, noting sufficient opportunities were given, and upheld the imposition of costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded to the petitioner against the respondents.

Ravikumar Vs Guruvammal — Partition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Reserved on 08.08.2023 Pronounced on 13.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶6

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023 and CMP(MD)No.3061 of 2023

Ravikumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Guruvammal 2.Chandran

¶11

3.Usharani Chinnasamy (died)

¶12

4.Vijayarani

¶13

5.Gengammal

¶14

6.Mahalakshmi ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, dated 20.12.2022.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian For R1 to R3 : Mr.F.X.Eugene For R5 & R6 : No appearance

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is preferred against the order passed in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, dated 20.12.2022.

¶22

The above suit in O.S.No.90 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner as plaintiff for partition and to allot 1/9^th share to the plaintiff. During the pendency of the above suit, the defendants 4 and 5 filed an application in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in O.S.No.90 of 2012 for reopening the case to adduce evidence on their side. In the petition, the defendants 4 and 5 have pleaded that since their side evidence was suo motu closed by the Court, it has become necessary for them to file an application to reopen the case to adduce evidence on their side. The said application was resisted on the side of the first respondent/plaintiff stating that inspite of sufficient time given by the

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023

¶26

Court, they failed to adduce evidence and therefore, their evidence was closed. The trial Court, after considering the averments made in the petition and the counter affidavit, allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved by this, the second defendant in the suit filed the above revision by stating that the trial Court committed a grave error in allowing the application after a lapse of 10 years. Since the defendants 4 and 5 failed to adduce evidence and cross examine D.W.1 to D.W.5, their evidence was closed. Having failed to utilize the opportunity given to them, the trial Court ought not to have allowed the application filed by the fourth and fifth defendants to reopen the case. It is further submitted that the case is at the stage of defendant's side further evidence and by allowing this application, the nature and character of the suit would be changed which would introduce a new set of idea and cause prejudice to the right of the petitioners.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the trial Court with an intention to afford sufficient opportunity to the defendants 4 and 5 has rightly allowed the application by imposing costs upon the respondents. Therefore, there is no perversity in the

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023

¶31

order passed by the trial Court.

¶32

Heard on both sides and records perused.

¶33

On perusal of records, it is seen that the trial Court has given sufficient opportunities to the defendants 4 and 5 to adduce evidence on their side. However, the defendants 4 and 5 failed to adduce evidence on their side. Since it is a suit for partition, sufficient opportunity should be given to the parties to putforth their case and therefore, in the interest of justice the trial Court has allowed the said application filed by the defendants 4 and 5 and there is no perversity or infirmity found in the order of the trial Court. However, the trial Court considering the attitude of the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 4 and 5 had imposed cost on the defendants by way of compensation. Hence, no infirmity is found in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

13.12.2023

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023

¶38

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes cp/vsn To The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.

¶39

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI

¶40

5/6

¶41

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

¶42

CRP (MD) No.653 of 2023

¶43

cp/vsn

¶44

order made in C.R.P(MD)No.653 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.3061 of 2023

¶45

13.12.2023

¶46

6/6

¶47

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

Ravikumar v. Guruvammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar v. Guruvammal

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

A.Kannan Vs Dhanalakshmi

Palanisamy Vs Dhanalakshmi

The Divisional Manager Vs Balasekaran

Rajeswari Vs M. Ponnusamy

Ravikumar, Vs Gengammal

V. Panchavarnam, Vs P. Jothi