Madras High Court
A.Zareena Begum vs Ajith S.Mehta on 18 February, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3057, 3058, 3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2009
A.Zareena Begum
Rep by its POA
K.Ilavarasu ... Petitioner
in all CRPs.
Vs.
1. Ajith S.Mehta
2. S.K.Amirali Gee @ Tilati Bab
3. N.C.Kadirvelu
4. K.Narayanasamy
5. Mani
6. Veerabadran
7. Paragushan
8. Bhaskar
9. Pakiri
10. S.Balaji
11. G. Malliga
12. M.A.Jayalakshami
13. B.Radha
14. Fathima
15. S.Mohammed Salik
16. A.Ramesh
17. Murshida
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
18. Tamildau Housing Board
Rep by its Chairman,
Anna Salai, Chennai-35.
19. Dr.V.P.Varadarajan ... Respondents
in all CRPs.
Common Prayer :- These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal orders
dated 02.09.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.15679, 15680, 15677, 15678 & 15681
of 2009 respectively in O.S.No.7049 of 2009 by the learned VI Assistant
City Civil Judge, Chennai.
For Petitioner in
all CRPs : Mr.Ramesh Ramachandran
For Respondents
in all CRPs : Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are directed as against the fair
and decretal order dated 02.09.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.15679, 15680,
15677, 15678 & 15681 of 2009 respectively in O.S.No.7049 of 2009 by the
learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, thereby dismissing the
petitions filed by the petitioner to recall and reopen the evidence of D.W.1
and D.W.2.
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
2. In all the CRPs, the petitioner is the 18th defendant in the suit
filed by the 19th respondent herein for permanent injunction, in respect of
the suit property. The suit was filed in the year 2000 and thereafter both
sides evidences closed. When the suit was posted for judgment after
conclusion of arguments, the petitioner being the 18th defendant in the suit
filed petition to re-open and re-call D.W.1 and D.W.2.
3. On perusal of records it revealed that the petitioner already
filed petitions to re-open and re-call D.W.1. The said petitions were allowed
and through D.W.1, she marked Ex.D.37, even in the year 2009 itself. Again
she filed petitions to re-open and re-call D.W.1 and D.W.2 to mark the
voters ID, Ration card and also letters issued by the Tashildar.
4. It is seen from the records, the learned counsel, who entered
appearance on behalf of the petitioner in all cases, reported that the entire
bundle have already been handed over to the petitioner and he had given
change of vakalath. Today, Mr.Ramesh Ramachandran, learned counsel
represented that he yet to receive instructions from the petitioner and he
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
seeks time to file vakalath. The suit is of the year 2000 and the Civil
Revision Petitions are filed in the year 2009. These Civil Revision Petitions
are pending for the past 12 years and the petitioner did not take any steps to
engage new counsel to appear on behalf of her. It is nothing but delaying
tactics and it cannot be permitted.
5. That apart, when the suit was posted for judgment after
conclusion of arguments, the present petitions have been filed by the
petitioner herein. The documents which are sought to be marked by the
petitioner were issued in the year 2006. Therefore, the trial Court rightly
dismissed the petitions. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the
orders passed by the Court below. Considering the facts and circumstances,
the trial Court viz., the learned VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, is
directed to dispose the suit within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
6. With the above directions, all the Civil Revision Petitions are
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
18.02.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
rts
To
1. The VI Assistant City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.3057, 3058,
3727, 3728 & 3729 of 2009
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2009
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
