Madras High Court
Sengottaiyan vs Arivalagan on 7 June, 2021
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2612 of 2021
Sengottaiyan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Arivalagan
2. Rajathee ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 15.12.2020 passed in
I.A.No.366 of 2019 in O.S.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court, Vazhapadi.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal
order dated 15.12.2020 passed in I.A.No.366 of 2019 in O.S.No.26 of 2019
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vazhapadi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents / plaintiffs had filed
a suit in O.S.No.330 of 2008 before the I Additional District Munsif, Salem, for
declaration that the sale deed (Document No.3) executed by the 1st defendant
Settianna Gounder in favour of the 2nd defendant Selva Kumar and the sale
deed (Document No.5) executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd
defendant, the petitioner herein, with respect to the suit property are sham,
nominal, fraudulent, invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs, and for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents or any
other person claim under them from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. When the trial was pending,
the suit was transferred to the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Vazhapadi and re-numbered as O.S.No.26 of 2019. In the said suit, the
petitioner herein / 3rd defendant has filed a petition in I.A.No.366 of 2019
under Order 12 Rule 6 and Section 151 CPC for dismissing the suit on
account of the admission made by the plaintiff during the cross examination.
3. The Learned District Munsif, after considering the averments and
the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, dismissed the
said I.A on the ground that when the suit was in the stage of defendants’ side
evidence, the above petition has been filed for protracting the proceedings,
and since the suit has been filed with the delay of 3 years, whether it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
maintainable under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC will come to know only at the time
of examination, hence directed the defendants to complete their evidence
expeditiously as the case is pending from 2008. Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner / 3rd defendant has filed this revision petition before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very
purpose of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is only to pass an order based on the
admissions made by the parties and thereby minimize the duration of trial and
enable the Court to give early disposal, and the Trial Court has failed to
consider the same. He would also submit that the Trial Court having come to
know from the admission of the 1st plaintiff i.e. in the evidence of PW1 that
the suit is filed beyond the period of 3 years, has failed to dismiss the same
as barred by limitation, and the dismissal of the petition under Order 12 Rule
6 CPC is unwarranted.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the
respondents / plaintiffs, instead of seeking cancellation of sale deed, have
sought for declaration only as they are aware of the limitation aspects, and
only to circumvent it, they have framed the untenable prayer. Moreover, he
would submit that Order 12 Rule 6 CPC clearly states that the Court may at
any stage of the suit and without waiting for the determination of any other
question between the parties, make such order or give judgment, as it may
think fit, having regard to such admission. The Court below has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
considered the said provision of law in proper perspective, which has resulted
in grave miscarriage of justice.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
materials available on record.
7. It is clear from the records that the respondents have filed a suit as
early as 2008 seeking declaration that the sale deed (Document No.3)
executed by the 1st defendant Settianna Gounder in favour of the 2nd
defendant Selva Kumar and the sale deed (Document No.5) executed by the
2nd defendant in favour of the 3rd defendant, the petitioner herein, with respect
to the suit property are sham, nominal, fraudulent, invalid and not binding on
the plaintiffs, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their
men, agents or any other person claim under them from interfering with the
plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
8. It is seen from the records that originally the 1 st plaintiff had
purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed dated 11.02.1998
vide Doc.No.2955 of 1998 and subsequently he executed a general power of
attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant Selva Kumar under the registered sale
deed dated 14.02.2002 vide Doc.No.18 of 2002. On the same day, the
original documents were given to the said Selva Kumar. On 21.02.2002,
within few days, the said Selva Kumar executed a registered sale agreement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
in favour of the 1st defendant Chettiyana Gounder vide Doc.No.394 of 2002
on the basis of the general power of attorney. The plaintiffs had also issued a
receipt in favour of the 2nd defendant Selva Kumar for receiving the sale
consideration, and in the said receipt, they have mentioned that they will not
cancel the general power of attorney. On 21.01.2003, the plaintiffs had
cancelled the general power of attorney executed in favour of the 2nd
defendant on 14.02.2002 and subsequently the 2nd defendant executed a sale
deed in favour of the 3rd defendant on 27.03.2003 vide Doc.No.742 of 2003. It
is also seen that a police complaint has been preferred by the plaintiffs as
against the defendants 1 to 3, and only after, the above suit has been filed by
the plaintiffs. The 3rd defendant had filed I.A.No.366 of 2019 to pass a decree
and judgment in the above suit and the same has been dismissed by the Trial
Court on 15.12.2020. As against which, the present revision petition has been
filed before this Court.
9. On perusal of the records, the suit has been filed in the year 2008
before the I Additional District Munsif at Salem. The suit was posted for trail,
and after examination of the plaintiff in chief, the suit was transferred to
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Vazhapadi and renumbered as
O.S.No.26 of 2019. The respondents / plaintiffs have filed their documents on
27.06.2012 and thereafter they were cross examined on 31.07.2012. The
petition under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been filed only on 18.12.2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
seeking for a prayer to dismiss the suit in view of the admissions made by the
plaintiff during the cross examination.
10. On going through the materials on record, it is made clear that the
petition under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC has been filed by the petitioner almost
after 7 years from the alleged admission. Even if it is taken to be as an
admission, it cannot be questioned after 7 years. If at all the petitioner had
come to the conclusion that there is an admission, he should have
immediately approached this Court by filing a petition. The I.A. has been filed
only after a period of 7 years from the alleged admission, which is a clear
case of abuse of process of law adopted by the petitioner herein. Hence, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to
interfere with the order passed by the Court below in the application for
dismissal of the suit.
11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.06.2021
raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vazhapadi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
raja
C.R.P.(PD).No.282 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2612 of 2021
07.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
