Plaintiff sought a direction to the trial court to dispose her suit for permanent injunction against alienation of suit property, which had seen repeated adjournments over four years with no written statement filed. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months and permitted appropriate orders if the respondent did not cooperate.
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.No.1764 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
N.Kannammal ... Petitioner
Vs.
Annakodi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, praying to direct the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode to dispose suit in O.S.No.7 of 2020 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Erode within a stipulated time.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Pandimeena
ORDER
This revision has been filed seeking to direct the learned
I Additional District Judge, Erode to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.7 of 2020
within a stipulated time.
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
2.The petitioner as plaintiff has filed a suit against the respondent
seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondent in any manner encumbering or alienating the suit property.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the
petitioner and respondent are sisters. The petitioner, at the age of 17 years, was given in marriage to one Subramaniam, who died seven months after the
marriage. At that time, the petitioner was four months pregnant. Due to the unfortunate death of the petitioner's husband, she moved back to her parents' house and was living there. She studied up to 8th standard and hence, she has
got limited knowledge. She became a widow with a child at young age and
she was under severe mental trauma and depression. During that time, the respondent and her husband, namely, Thangarasu were also living in the petitioner's parents' house. The said Thangarasu taking advantage of the petitioner's mental state and dependent condition, had dominance over her.
The respondent also supported the said Thangarasu. During December, 2017,
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
the petitioner was forced out from her parents' house and thereafter by threat
and coercion, her signature was obtained forcibly and thereafter it was projected as though it is a settlement deed. Using the same, the petitioner is being denied of her shelter and she has been chased away from her parents' house.
4.This being so, one Nallasivam, who is the confidential person of
the petitioner's father Nachimuthu, gave shelter to the petitioner and she is now surviving. She is permitted to live in the present address. Thereafter, the petitioner for shelter visited her parental house and she was chased away. She lodged a police complaint and to officials to cancel the document dated 02.03.2017. Thereafter, she caused legal notice on 13.11.2019 and filed the present suit. In the suit, the respondent initially on 26.02.2020, took time to file written statement. Thereafter, it was periodically adjourned for filing
written statement and till date no written statement filed, despite several adjournments and recordings made as 'No further adjournment'. The
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
petitioner also filed an injunction petition in I.A.No.2 of 2020, which is also periodically adjourned. Now the case is posted to first week of June, 2024 and for the past four years there is no progress.
5.Finding that the petitioner being a widow lady, who was
traumatized, exploited and chased away from her parental home, having no place for shelter, filed the above suit. The Trial Court giving adjournments, mechanically and periodically is against the procedure contemplated under
law. This Court as well as the Apex Court in several judgments have reiterated the same. Finding unnecessary long adjournments given without valid reason, this Court directs the trial Court (I Additional District Judge,
Erode) to take effective steps, ensure that trial is not further protracted and prolonged, and to conclude the trial without further delay. The trial Court can pass appropriate orders in the event of respondent not cooperating with the
trial. In any event, the trial to be concluded within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
6.With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed
of. No costs.
26.04.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral citation : Yes/No rsi
Note: Issue order copy on 30.04.2024 To
The I Additional District Judge, Erode.
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
C.R.P.No.1764 of 2024
26.04.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the injunction suit pending since 2020 within a fixed time frame.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Kannammal
Annakodi
M.Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
