Madras High Court
Dharmaraj vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.Dharmaraj
2.Rangasamy
3.Periyasamy
4.Thangamuthu ..Appellants
Vs.
1.Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by
District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Perundurai Road,
Erode – 11.
2.Sivasubramaniam ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of
C.P.C., against the Judgment and decree dated 12.09.2012 passed in
A.S.No.63 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Erode
remanding back the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2006 in
O.S.No.400 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District Court, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
For Appellants : Mr.A.Sundaravadhanan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jagadeesan
Government Advocate(CS)
[For R1]
No appearance for R2
JUDGMENT
The Judgment and Decree dated 12.09.2012 passed in A.S.No.63
of 2012 is under challenge in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand.
2. The plaintiff is the petitioner in the present appeal. The suit was
instituted for mandatory injunction, directing the 1st respondent and the
officials to change the Revenue records including Patta, Chitta for the
suit property into the name of the plaintiffs within the time limit to be
specified by the Court.
3. The defendants in the suit are the State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the District Collector, Erode and One
Mr.Sivasubramaniam. The suit was decreed exparte. Against the exparte
decree, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector,
filed A.S.No.63 of 2012. The First Appeal was considered by the First
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
Appellate Court and the matter was remanded back for retrial. The said
judgment passed in the First Appeal is under challenge in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. Admittedly, the Trial Court passed an exparte decree. The First
Appeal was filed against the exparte decree passed.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/Government now made a submission that the suit property is
a water canal and it is a Public property and therefore, the plaintiffs are
the encroachers and therefore, the District Collector filed the First
Appeal to set aside the exparte decree.
6. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter for retrial in
order to find out whether the suit property is the Water Canal belongs to
the Government or the property belongs to the plaintiff. Such an
adjudication is imminent in view of the fact that the property right is to
be decided with reference to the documents and evidences available. The
petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, he has to establish
his civil right in order to possess the suit property. Based on the exparte
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
decree, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit property. Thus,
the First Appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter back to the
trial Court for considering all the issues raised between the parties and
dispose of the case on merits and in accordance with law. This Court do
not find any infirmity in support of the judgment passed by the trial
Court, remanding the matter back for re-trial, in view of the fact that the
Trial Court passed the exparte decree.
7. This apart, this Court is of the considered opinion that the suit
was instituted in the year 2005 and pending for the past more than 15
years. It is a second round of litigation. This being the factum, the trial
Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. The parties to the Civil Suit are directed to co-
operate for the early disposal of the suit. The Courts are expected not to
grant unnecessary adjournments. Adjournment on genuine grounds may
be granted by recording the reasons. Thus, it is necessary that the suit
must be disposed of in a speedy manner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
8. Thus, this Court do not find any acceptable ground for the
purpose of considering the relief. Accordingly, the judgment and decree
dated 12.09.2012 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2012 stands confirmed and
consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
07.01.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
The I Additional District Court,
Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.M.A.No.767 of 2013
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
