Madras High Court
Thangavel vs Jothi on 21 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
1.Thangavel
2.Sennayammal
3.Raja
4.Rangammal
5.Ravikumar
6.Sennayammal ..Appellants
Vs.
1.Jothi
2.Sivakumar
3.Muthusamy
4.Rani
5.Madeswaran
6.Manikandan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
7.Devi
8.Sakthi
9.Ganesan
10.Subramaniyam
11.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
12.Bommayi
13.Alamelu
14.Chitra
15.Mallika
16.Saritha
..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order LXIII Rule 1(c)
of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal order of the learned Principal
District Judge, Namakkal dated 08.01.2016 made in I.A.No.189 of 2015
in O.S.No.129/2012.
For Appellants : Mr.I.Abrar MD Abdullah
For Respondents : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The fair and decreetal order dated 08.01.2016 made in I.A.No.189
of 2015 in O.S.No.129 of 2012, is under challenge in the present civil
miscellaneous appeal.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants in the present appeal. The suit
was instituted for partition. Admittedly, the suit was dismissed for
default due to non appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs. An
interlocutory application was filed in I.A.No.189 of 2015 to restore the
suit under Order IX Rule 9. The Interlocutory application was dismissed
by the trial Court mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs even on earlier
occasions, have not pursued the suit vigilantly and repeatedly absent in
appearing in the case. The Trial Court made a finding that on several
occasions, the plaintiffs or the learned counsel not appeared to contest
the case. Thus, the motive of the plaintiffs is to prolong the litigation.
3. Undoubtedly, there was a delay at the instance of the plaintiffs
in disposing of the main suit. However, the interlocutory application was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
filed soon after the suit was dismissed for default. The suit is for
partition and the rights of the parties are to be crystallized with a view to
give one more opportunity to the appellants / plaintiffs.
4. Thus, this Court is inclined to restore the suit despite the fact
that the plaintiffs did not appear before the Trial Court for hearing on
earlier occasions. Hereafter, the appellants are expected to lead the case
properly and adjudicate the issues by availing the opportunity provided
by the Trial Court.
5. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal order dated 08.01.2016
made in I.A.No.189 of 2015 in O.S.No.129 of 2012, is set aside.
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
6. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of ten months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties to the suit are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
directed to cooperate for the earlier disposal of the suit. The Trial Court
should decline unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds if sought
for by the parties to the suit. The adjournments sought are to be granted
only on genuine grounds and by recording reasons. Thus, the Trial Court
is expected to proceed with the case without granting any unnecessary
adjournments either at the instance of the parties or by the Courts.
21.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
To
1. The learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal
2.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai-2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
C.M.A.No.421 of 2016and
C.M.P.No.3077 of 2016
21.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
