Madras High Court
Abraham Samarendiranath Sircar vs Sadhu A.N.Sarkar Foundation on 24 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020 &
C.M.P.No.3673 of 2020
Abraham Samarendiranath Sircar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sadhu A.N.Sarkar Foundation
Registration No.1691/1998,
rep. By its Managing Trustee
E.Nandakumar
119, Sastri Nagar, 3rd cross
Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081
2. K.Sasikumar
Proprietor,
S.M.Pharmacy,
No.13C, West Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Vellore - 6 ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsif,
Katpadi dated 03.12.2019 in I.A.No.499 of 2018 in O.S.No.207 of 2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Hariharan
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
For Respondents : Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar for R1
Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan for R2
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair
and decreetal order of the learned District Munsif, Katpadi dated 03.12.2019
in I.A.No.499 of 2018 in O.S.No.207 of 2011.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner is the 2nd plaintiff and the 1st respondent is the 1st
plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.207 of 2011.
The said suit was filed by the petitioner and the 1st respondent jointly to
direct the respondent to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to
them and to pay arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.48,000/- to them. Further,
the written statement was also filed. In the meantime, the petitioner has
preferred I.A.No.499 of 2018 to transpose the 1st respondent as 2nd
defendant in the suit stating that the suit schedule property belonged to his
father, namely, A.N.Sircar and he executed a Will in favour of the 1st
respondent and another Will in favour of the petitioner. The 1st respondent
filed O.P.No.94 of 2003 before this Court to probate the Will in his favour
and the petitioner filed O.P.No.1 of 2004 to probate the Will executed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
father in favour of him and the O.P.No.1 of 2004 was transferred to this
Court and both the cases were converted into T.O.S.No.23 of 2003 and a
compromise was arrived and in view of the said joint compromise, a decree
was passed in the said T.O.S.No.23 of 2003 by this Court, thereby the
petitioner and the 1st respondent traced title to the suit property by way of
compromise decree passed in the Letters of Administration granted in TOS
No.23 of 2003.
(ii) Based on the orders passed in T.O.S.No.23 of 2003 the petitioner
and the 1st respondent have filed the present suit against the 2nd respondent
and another suit in O.S.No.133 of 2008 against one Vijayalakshmi and
others and the said suit was dismissed. As against the same, an appeal
has been preferred in A.S.No.504 of 2013 and the same is pending before
this Court. The said Vijayalakshmi and another filed an Application
No.2608 of 2012 in T.O.S.No.23 of 2003 before this Court to revoke the
Letters of Administration granted based on compromise decree and the
same was allowed and subsequently, the compromise decree was revoked.
Aggrieved against the same, O.S.A., has been preferred before this Court
and the same was dismissed with a direction to probate the Wills on merits.
In the meantime, the petitioner has preferred I.A.No.499 of 2018 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
transpose the 1st plaintiff as 2nd defendant. Resisting the same a counter
was filed. The court below dismissed the said I.A., as against the same, the
present Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial
court failed to note that the aforesaid subsequent events took place pending
the suit and the present application has been filed after the disposal of
O.S.A.No.92 of 2018. In the light of subsequent events, the petitioner and
the 1st respondent cannot continue the suit as co-plaintiffs and the 1st
plaintiff is to be transposed as the 2nd defendant to the suit, thereby pleaded
to allow the present petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would
submit that the I.A.No.499 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner only to
drag on the proceedings and in view of the fact that the suit was filed as
early as in the year 2011 and both sides evidence were closed and
arguments of both sides were heard and the suit was reserved for
judgment. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed this petition and there is no
provision to transpose the 1st plaintiff as 2nd defendant in the suit and the
provision mentined in the petition itself is wrong, thereby pleaded to dismiss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
documents placed on record.
6. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that suit in O.S.No.207 of
2011 was filed by the petitioner / 2nd plaintiff along with the 1st respondent /
1st plaintiff seeking a direction to deliver vacant space of the suit property by
the 2nd respondent and to pay the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.72,000/-
to the plaintiffs. The 2nd respondent / defendant has filed the written
statement on 07.09.2012 in the said suit and the trial court has framed the
substantial questions of law for consideration. On the side of the plaintiffs,
the petitioner / 2nd plaintiff, viz., Abraham Chandranath Sircar was
examined as P.W.1 and he was cross examined in full on 31.03.2015 by
the 2nd respondent / defendant. One Ulaganathan was examined as P.W.2
in chief and cross examined on 22.07.2015. On behalf of the 2 nd
respondent / defendant, Sasikumar was examined as D.W.1 in chief and on
25.02.2016, he was cross examined by the plaintiffs. Also, Bagyalakshmi
was examined as D.W.2 in chief on 09.03.2016 and nearly after 9 months,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
she was cross examined by the plaintiffs, on 16.11.2016.
7. It is also relevant to note that the case was pending for filing written
arguments from 18.01.2017 and on 16.08.2018, nearly after 8 months, the
arguments were concluded on the side of the plaintiffs, further, on
19.09.2018 defendant's side arguments were heard and the judgment date
was fixed on 03.10.2018 at that point of time, the I.A No.499 of 2018 has
been filed to transpose the 1st plaintiff as 2nd defendant.
8. It is not in dispute that the compromise decree passed in
T.O.S.No.23 of 2003 was revoked by this Court in A.No.2608 of 2012.
Further, as against the same, the 1st respondent / 1st plaintiff preferred an
appeal in O.S.A.No.92 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Division Bench and after
enquiry, the same was dismissed. .
9. It is important to note that the suit was filed in the year 2011 by the
1st respondent / 1st plaintiff along with the petitioner / 2nd plaintiff and the
arguments on both sides as well as examination and cross examinations
were concluded on 19.09.2018 and when the court below was about to pass
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
a judgment on 03.10.2018, at that distance point of time, this petition, viz.,
I.A.No.499 of 2018, to transpose the 1st plaintiff as 2nd defendant, has been
filed and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that the trial court has passed a well reasoned order,
which does not require any interference by this Court and therefore, the
present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
24.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking /Non-Speaking Order
ssd
To
The District Munsif,
Katpadi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
ssd
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
C.M.P. No.2760 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.703 of 2020
24.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
