Madras High Court
Kaliyamurthy (Deceased) vs Ramachandran on 4 February, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
1. Kaliyamurthy (Deceased)
2. Sarathambal
3. Ramesh
4. Mahesh
5. Revathi
6. Rekha
7. Mahalakshmi
(Petitioners 2 to 7 are brought
on record as legal heirs of the
deceased sole petitioner vide
Court order dated 04.02.2021
made in C.M.P.No.1613 of
2021 in C.R.P.3628 of 2015) ... Petitioners
Vs.
Kuppusamy (Died)
1. Ramachandran
2. Mahavishnu
3. Vasanth
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
4. Dhanam Ammmal
5. Sakthivel
6. Thaiyalnayaki
7. Karthiga
(Respondents 4 to 7 were
remained exparte in the
Court below) ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set
aside judgment and decree dated 17.02.2015 passed in I.A.No.438 of 2014
in O.S.No.16 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Portonova and allow the said I.A. by allowing this Civil
Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Muthukumar
For Respondents
For R1 to R3 : No appearance
For R4 to R7 : Dispensed with
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the judgment
and decree dated 17.02.2015 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Portonova in I.A.No.438 of 2014 in O.S.No.16 of 2009,
thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner seeking permission to
receive the reply statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
2. The first petitioner is the plaintiff and he filed suit in
O.S.No.16 of 2009 for specific performance as against the respondents
herein. The respondents filed their written statement stating that after
demise of the first defendant viz., Kuppusamy, the second respondent
herein purchased the second item of the suit property on 02.07.2008 from
the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant viz., the six and
seventh respondents herein. The third respondent herein purchased the first
item of the suit property by the sale deed dated 02.07.2008 from the seventh
and eighth respondents herein. They further stated that the first petitioner
originally filed suit in O.S.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai as against the deceased first
defendant for permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed in the year
2008, and thereafter, the present suit has been laid.
3. To deny the said allegations, the first petitioner filed this
petition in I.A.No.438 of 2014 to receive the reply statement to the written
statement filed by the respondents herein. The trial Court dismissed the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
petition, as against which the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners. Though notice served to the respondents and their name printed
in the cause list, no one is appeared on behalf of the respondents either by
person or through counsel.
5. On perusal of the reply statement, the first petitioner averd that
the first defendant was died on 20.11.2007 itself. Therefore, the alleged sale
deeds dated 02.07.2008, executed in favour of the second and third
respondents herein by the respondents 6 & 7 are sham and nominal and they
are not bonafide purchasers. Further stated that the first suit in O.S.No.32 of
2008 filed for permanent injunction as against the deceased first defendant,
and the same was dismissed with liberty to file fresh suit. Therefore, the
avernments made in the reply statements are no way caused prejudice to the
respondents and it would not change the nature of the suit and cause of
action of the suit.
6. In view of the above discussions, the order passed by the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
below is perverse and liable to be set aside. Accordingly the order dated
17.02.2015 passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Portonova in I.A.No.438 of 2014 in O.S.No.16 of 2009, is hereby set aside.
The petitioners are permitted to file their reply statement to the written
statement filed by the respondents herein.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
04.02.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Portonova.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(PD)No.3628 of 2015
and M.P.No.1 of 2015
04.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
