Madras High Court
Vijayan Rajes vs Mohan Rajes on 17 July, 2023
C.R.P.Nos.1988 of 2016 etc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2016
and
C.M.P.Nos. 10407, 10408 & 10409 of 2016
C.R.P.No.1988 of 2016
Vijayan Rajes .. Petitioner
vs
1.Mohan Rajes
2.Gowri Pandayanathan
Soundara Rajes (died)
3.Dayalan Rajes .. Respondents
C.R.P.No.1989 of 2016
Vijayan Rajes .. Petitioner
vs
1.Mohan Rajes
2.Dayalan Rajes
Soundara Rajes (died)
3.Gowri Pandiayanadhan
4.The No.1 Joint Sub Registrar
Salem (East), Salem – 636 001. .. Respondents
C.R.P.No.1990 of 2016
Vijayan Rajes .. Petitioner
vs
1.Mohan Rajes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1988 of 2016 etc
Soundara Rajes (Died)
2.Dayalan Rajes
3.Gowri Pandayanadhan
Bhanumathy Rajah (Died)
M.S.P.Rajah (died)
4.P.Jayaraj
5.Ulageswari
6.Sankareswari
7.Rajalakshmi
8.Vijayalakshmi
9.Madhana Ramamurthy
10.Suguna Mahendran
11.Radika Prabhu
12.Perisamy Ramesh Rajah
13.Preetha V.Kannan
14.Minor Ramaraj
15.Minor Aswini Ramesh Raja
16.Ashok Mohan Rajes .. Respondents
Prayer in CRP No. 1988 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order
dated 11.01.2016 passed in IA No. 135 of 2015 in OS No. 64 of
2007 on the file of III Additional District Court, Salem.
Prayer in CRP No. 1989 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order
dated 11.01.2016 passed in IA No. 136 of 2015 in OS No. 90 of
2011 on the file of Additional District Court, Salem.
Prayer in CRP No. 1990 of 2016 : Petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order
dated 11.01.2016 passed in IA No. 134 of 2015 in OS No. 116 of
2004 on the file of Additional District Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1988 of 2016 etc
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Sethuraman
for R1 in all CRPs
COMMON ORDER
I.A.Nos. 134 to 136 of 2015 have been filed under Section 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prior to these applications seeking
relief under Section 10 of CPC, I.A.Nos. 1026 & 1027 of 2007 were
filed in O.S.No.116 of 2004 and in O.S.No. 64 of 2007. They were
also applications filed under Section 10 of the CPC. The
applications were dismissed by the learned Additional District
Judge cum Fast Track Court, Salem on 28.11.2007. Challenging the
same, the civil revision petitions are filed before this Court in
C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 540 & 600 of 2008. The said revisions were
dismissed on 11.02.2008 and 14.02.2008, respectively. In the said
revisions this Court had specifically, held as follows:-
“CRP (PD) No. 540 of 2008
4.Admittedly, the petitioners preferred an
application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for
permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to
file a fresh suit. The said application has been
dismissed by the Court below and thereafter,
the petitioners preferred CRP No. 2107 of 1999
before this Court and the same was also
dismissed on 14.10.2003. Thereafter, the
petitioners have proceeded with the suit and
the suit was dismissed and an appeal seems to
have been filed against the said Judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1988 of 2016 etc
decree. This has been weighed in the mind of
the learned Judge while dismissing the
application filed under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC.
Further more, the petitioners have not filed any
document substantiating that the issue
involved in the present suit and the issue
before this Court in the appeal are one and the
same. Thus, the Court below has taken into
consideration the above facts and dismissed
the application preferred by the petitioners. Yet
another reason that could be assigned is that
the appeal before this Court may take couple
of years ad till then, the suit filed by the first
respondent need not be stayed.
CRP (PD) No. 600 of 2008
3. In the present suit what has to be decided is
whether the gift deed is valid or not and the
same is not the subject matter to be decided in
the appeals that are pending before this
Court. The appeals pending before this Court
are relating to the relief of partition and
separate possession. Thus the court below has
rejected the contention raised on the side of
the petitioner seeking for stay of the suit till
disposal of the appeals pending before this
Court. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in
the said order.”
2. After having suffered an order of dismissal before this
Court, the respondents herein have argued before the trial Court
that the case was not properly explained to learned District Judge
as well as to the High Court and, therefore, they have filed fresh
applications under Section 10 of the CPC.
3. I am afraid, once an order comes till the High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1988 of 2016 etc
and it is dismissed, it is no more open to the learned District Judge
to entertain a fresh application on the same grounds. To state that
the points were not urged before the High Court and, therefore,
the petitioners are entitled to re-urge the very same points before
the trial Court is nothing but granting premium for re-litigation.
4. I am bound by the orders passed by this Court in CRP
(PD) Nos. 540 and 600 of 2008. It is unfortunate that the trial
Court should have been persuaded by going into the merits of the
case after the previous order had attained finality. Consequentially,
the Civil Revision Petitions stand allowed. The stay granted is
vacated and the trial Court shall proceed with the suit and dispose
of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
17.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
The III Additional District Court, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.1988 of 2016 etc
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ssm
C.R.P.Nos.1988, 1989 & 1990 of 2016
17.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
