Madras High Court
Karthik vs Thirunavukarassu on 11 January, 2022
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019 & CMP.No.7299/2019
[Physical Mode]
Karthik .. Petitioner in
all CRPs
Vs.
Thirunavukarassu .. Respondent
in all CRPs
Common Prayer:- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 19.02.2019 in
IA.Nos.18/2019, 19/2019 and 20/2019 in OS.No.709/2013 on the file of
the learned I Additional District Munsif, at Pondicherry.
For Petitioner in all
the Petitions : Mr.R.Rajarajan
For Respondent in all
the Petitions : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
COMMON ORDER
(1) The above Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the
orders dated 19.02.2019 made in IA.Nos.18/2019, 19/2019 and
20/2019 in OS.No.709/2013.
(2) The respondent in all the Civil Revision Petitions is the plaintiff in
OS.No.709/2013 before the learned I Additional District Munsif,
Puducherry. The suit was for declaration of plaintiff's easementary
right in respect of the suit schedule property for ingress and egress
from every point of plaintiff's ''A'' Schedule property. The suit is
also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant in the suit
from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of ''C''
Schedule property by any obstruction or construction of any
building in the suit ''C'' Schedule property. The other prayer for
injunction is also consequential to the main reliefs.
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
(3) The suit was contested by the revision petitioner/defendant on
many grounds. After evidence of plaintiff and defendant was over,
the revision petitioner/defendant filed an application in
IA.No.18/2019 to reopen the case to mark the document, namely,
the certified copy of the judgment and decree in OS.No.573/1976
dated 12.06.1977. Another application in IA.No.19/2019 was filed
to recall the defendant himself as DW1 to mark the said document.
The 3rd application in IA.No.20/2019 was filed to condone the delay
in filing the document namely the certified copy of the judgment
and decree in OS.No.573/1976.
(4) The respondent/plaintiff contested the application mainly on the
ground that the judgment and decree in OS.No.573/1976 is not
binding on the parties to the present suit as the said suit had been
filed by the predecessor in interest of plaintiff as against a third
party. It was also pointed out by the respondent/plaintiff that the
revision petitioner has not pleaded a case in tune with the judgment
in OS.No.573/1976. It was contended by the respondent herein
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
that the revision petitioner has filed the applications only to drag on
the proceedings without specific plea in the written statement.
(5) The Trial Court accepted the case of the respondent/plaintiff and
dismissed all the Interlocutory Applications mainly on the ground
that neither the defendant nor his predecessors are parties to the
judgment and that therefore, the judgment is not between inter-
parties. It is also held by the Trial Court that the admissibility and
relevancy of the document itself is in question in the present suit.
Pointing out that the suit is based on easementary right, it was
further observed by the Lower Court that the defendant had not
raised any plea referring to the judgment which is sought to be
marked. After holding that there was no explanation on the part of
the defendant as to why the document was not pleaded nor
produced before the Trial Court at the earliest point of time. The
Trial Court dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
(6) From the averments made in support of the affidavits filed in
support of the Interlocutory Applications before the Trial Court, it
is seen that the revision petitioner/defendant has filed the
applications as the said document, namely, the judgment and
decree in OS.No.573/1976 dated 12.06.1977, will throw some light
to sustain his plea that the plaintiff in the suit has no right of
easement. The Court need not give much focus at this point
whether the document will prove the case of the revision
petitioner/defendant. This Court is of the view that the document
may throw some light with regard to the previous claim made by
the plaintiff's predecessors in interest. The certified copy of the
judgment and decree shows that one Padmanabhan, predecessor in
interest of plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction and that the suit
filed by him was dismissed by the Court below holding that the said
Padmanabhan has not proved his possession over the suit property.
(7) It is to be noted that the present suit is for establishing easementary
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
right which may not require a person to prove actual physical
possession of the property. However, the judgment in the previous
suit may be of some assistance to this Court to decide/adjudicate
the issues more effectively. Merely because the document was not
referred to in the written statement, the applications cannot be
dismissed as it has been done by the Trial Court. The revision
petitioner is not a party to the earlier suit. He has produced the
certified copy of the judgment and decree in OS.No.573/1976
probably by getting the copy of the same through other sources. It
cannot be presumed that the revision petitioner was aware of the
document even earlier.
(8) In the above circumstances, this Court is unable to sustain the
orders of the Trial Court holding that the applications cannot be
allowed to mark the document on the ground that the defendant has
not produced the said document earlier.
(9) In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
the Civil Revision Petitions are to be allowed.
(10) In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside
the order dated 19.02.2019 made in IA.Nos.18/2019, 19/2019 and
20/2019 in OS.No.709/2013 by the learned I Additional District
Munsif, at Pondicherry. IA.Nos.18/2019, 19/2019 and 20/2019
stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
11.01.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
The I Additional District Munsif
Puducherry.
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
CRP.PD.Nos.1118, 1119 & 1121/2019
11.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
