Madras High Court
Arumugapillai vs Muthu on 25 August, 2023
CRP Nos.2860 and 2728 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Civil Revision Petition Nos.2860 and 2728 of 2023
and CMP.Nos.17720 and 16818 of 2023
Arumugapillai ... Petitioner in both cases
Vs.
1. Muthu
2. Lakshmi
3. The Sub Registrar
Sub Registrar Officer, Vandavasi,
Tiruvannamalai District.
4. The District Collector,
The District Collector Office,
Thiruvannamalai District.
5. The Tahsildar,
Tahsildar Office, Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents in both cases
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India
to set aside the common order passed in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 in
OS.No.80 of 2020 respectively dated 29.03.2023 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.G.Senthilkumar
COMMON ORDER
Both the Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the
common order passed in IA.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 in OS.No.80 of 2023
dated 29.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2860 and 2728 of 2023
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff has filed
the suit for declaration declaring the D and C Schedule property in
Doc.No.1830 of 1993 dated 12.10.1993 as null and void on the file of the
3rd respondent and for a mandatory injunction to delete the D and C
Schedule property from the Doc.No.1830 of 1993 and for a permanent
injunction restraining the 5th respondent/Tahsildar from issuing any patta.
3. Before the trial Court, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed their
written statement and the suit was posted for reply arguments, at that
stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed IA.No.1 of 2023 to reopen and IA.No.2 of
2023 to receive the document for counter claim. As it was belatedly filed,
the Court below has not given opportunity and proceed with framing of
issues. The petitioner was not in a position to file his reply written
statement for the counter claim made by the defendants 1 and 2. The trial
Court has simply dismissed the petition, on the ground that the written
statement which is going to be filed is hit by limitation and by citing the
provision under Order 8 Rule 1. The trial Court had failed to look into the
provisions under Order 8 Rule 6G, on this score alone both the revision
petitions are to be allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2860 and 2728 of 2023
4. In the counter claim, the trial Court has not extended any
opportunity to file the written statement, which is mandatory requirement.
During the pendency of the present revision petitions, the suit has been
decreed in his favour, there was no reply written statement was filed in the
counter claim. The rights of the petitioner ought to have been decided, the
said Court has passed the decree and judgment in favour of the petitioner,
hence, the learned counsel for the pettioner seeks permission of this Court
to withdraw the present revision petitions, with liberty to raise all the
aspects in the appeal suit. It is left open to the petitioner to exhaust his
remedy available under the CPC before the appellate forum.
5. Both the civil revision petitions are dismissed as withdrawn, with
liberty to the petitioner to raise all the aspects before the appellate forum.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking / Nonspeaking order
tsh
To
The District Munsif, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2860 and 2728 of 2023
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.
tsh
CRP.No.2860 and 2728 of 2023
25.08.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
