Madras High Court
Paulkani vs [email protected] on 12 January, 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:12.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
C.R.P(PD)(MD)NOs.630 to 632 OF 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2884 of 2017
1.Paulkani
2.Velmurugan
3.Paulraj @ Muthuraj
4.Senthilkumar
5.Ulaga Selvi
6.Murugeswari
7.Vanitha
8.Murugammal
9.Minor Rasiga
10.Minor Ranjith
11.Minor Ajantha
12.Minor Muthu Selvan
(Minor Petitioners 9 to 12 are represented through
their mother and guardian, the 8th Petitioner herein)
:Petitioners/Petitioners/
Defendants 2, 4 to 14
in all C.R.Ps'
.vs.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[email protected] :Respondent/Respondent/
Plaintiff in all C.R.Ps'
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair
and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.1139,1140 and 1171 of 2016,
dated 11.01.2017, on the file of the Principal District Munsif,
Valliyoor.
For Petitioners :Mr.H.Arumugam
in all C.R.Ps'
For Respondent :Mr.G.Meenakshisundaram
in all C.R.Ps' Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.GA.Nataraj
COMMON ORDER
*************
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking to set
aside the fair and decretal orders made in I.A.Nos.1139,1140 and
1171 of 2016 in O.S.No.222 of 2008, dated 11.01.2017, on the file
of the Principal District Munsif, Valliyoor.
2.The respondent herein as Plaintiff, has filed a suit in
O.S.No.222 of 2008, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court,
Valliyoor, for the relief of declaration and injunction. During the
pendency of the suit, the Petitioners have filed the applications in
I.A.Nos. 1139,1140 and 1171 of 2016 in O.S.No.222 of 2008.The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said petitions were dismissed by the trial Court and challenging the
same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
4.I.A.No.1139 of 2016 to re-open the case to call for the Gift
Deed, dated 17.3.1996 from the Sub-Registrar Office, Tisayanvilai
and Thumb Impression Register pertaining to the said sale deed to
compare the signature of the executant Perumal Nadar and the
Plaintiff under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5.I.A.No.1140 of 2016 has been filed to pass an order to
expert opinion for comparing and verifying the thumb impression
and signature of the respondent/Plaintiff in Ex.B1 and also to
compare and verify the thumb impression and signature of Perumal
Nadar in Ex.B2 with the admitted signatures in Gift Deed, dated
17.3.1996 in favour of the respondent/Plaintiff and to file a report
under Section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
6.I.A.No.1171 of 2016 has been filed by the defendants 2 and
4 to 14 in the suit to call for the documents from the Sub-Registrar
Office,Tisayanvilai(Gift Deed, dated 17..3.1986 and the Thumb
Impression Register pertaining to the Gift Deed) to compare the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
signature of the executant Perumal Nadar and the plaintiff, under
Rule 75 and 76 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
7.The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that
the Gift Deed, dated 17.3.1986, in which, the parties herein who
are the parties to the said documents, had filed a suit after 22
years and the suit itself is barred by limitation and they cannot
challenge the same after two decades. Therefore the Petitioners
filed an application to send for the documents for sending the said
documents for experts' opinion, for which, the case is to be re-
opened and they have filed three applications as referred to supra
and the trial Court had dismissed all the three applications.
8.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
the suit is filed in the year 2008, trial commenced in the year 2011,
however opportunity was given to both the parties and plaintiff side
evidence and defendant side evidence are also over. At this stage,
the Petitioners have filed the above three applications and every
opportunity was given to the Petitioners and taking all the
opportunities and when the matter is posted for defendants'
arguments after hearing the plaintiff side arguments, the Petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have filed the present applications and the trial Court appreciating
all the facts taking into consideration, have dismissed the
applications and as such there is no merit in the revisions and the
revisions are liable to be dismissed.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
10.Admittedly, the respondent has filed a suit as against the
Petitioners and others. The suit was filed in the year 2008, the trial
commenced in the year 2011 and after completion of trial and when
the matter is posted for arguments, at that time, the defendants as
petitioners, have filed an application in I.A.No.1139 of 2016 to
reopen the case and also filed two other applications for the relief as
stated supra. All the three Petitions came to be dismissed and the
main contention of the Petitioners is that the respondent is a party
to the documents and he was aware of the documents and in one
document, he is an executor and in other documents he is an
attestor and knowing fully well the said facts, he had filed the suit.
However, at this stage, this Court cannot go into the merits of the
case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11.The suit is filed in the year 2008 and the Petitioners have
not filed any application to decide any of the issue as a preliminary
issue and the respondents have filed written statement and the
Petitioners have participated in the trial in all the levels and trial
was also completed and when the matter is posted for arguments
and the argument was heared in part, these applications were filed.
Even in the earlier occasion, the Petitioners have filed several
applications and the trial Court had patiently heard all the
applications, given them the opportunities of hearing and more
over, the Petitioners have not taken these applications in earlier
occasions when the documents is to be sent for comparison with the
signature found in the admitted documents. The Petitioners have
not given sufficient reason as to why they have not filed any such
applications in the earlier stage when the suit is pending for more
than 8 years for disposal. These applications have been filed after
eight years, that too, after completion of trial and the matter is
pending at the stage of pronouncing judgment. When the matter is
at the stage of pronouncing judgement, the Petitioners have filed
these applications only to drag on the proceedings.Therefore, this
Court does not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned
order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1139 of 2016 to reopen
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the case and accordingly C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.630 of 2017 is
dismissed. Since the revision filed against the I.A filed for
reopening the case itself was dismissed, there is no merit in the
other two Civil Revision Petitions and consequently the other two
C.R.Ps' in C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.631 and 632 of 2017 are dismised. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
12.Since the suit is pending from the year 2008, the trial
Court is directed to hear the arguments of both sides and dispose of
the main suit itself within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to
cooperate with the Court below for early disposal of the suit, as
directed by this Court.
12.01.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Principal District Munsif,
Valliyoor.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
vsn
COMMON 0RDER MADE IN
C.R.P(PD)(MD)NOs.630 to
632 OF 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2884 of 2017
12.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
