N.Nagalingadurai ... Revision vs Manonmani ... 1St
2024 Latest Caselaw 19097 Mad

Madras High Court

N.Nagalingadurai ... Revision vs Manonmani ... 1St on 27 September, 2024

Author: G.R.Swaminathan

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

                                                                        C.R.P.(MD)No.2334 of 2024




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                            Dated : 27.09.2024

                                               CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

                                       C.R.P.(MD)No.2334 of 2024
                                                 and
                                      C.M.P.(MD)No.13236 of 2024

                N.Nagalingadurai                          ... Revision Petitioner /
                                                        2nd Respondent / 2nd Defendant


                                                 Vs.


                1.Manonmani                             ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner /
                                                                      Plaintiff
                2.Kamatchiammal

                3.Kannappan

                4.Thiruneelakandan

                5.Abirami

                6.Annapoorani

                7.K.Mohamed Jinna

                8.M.Ramar                             ... Respondents 2 to 8 /
                                                 Respondents 1, 3 to 8 / Defendants 1,3to8




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                1/4
                                                                                     C.R.P.(MD)No.2334 of 2024


                Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                India, to call for the records relating to the decree and Judgment dated
                13.02.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.130 of 2022 passed by the learned
                Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur and set aside the same by allowing Civil
                Revision Petition,


                          For Petitioner         : Mrr.K.C.Ramalingam


                                                        ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. The revision petitioner is figuring as second defendant in O.S.No.130

of 2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Mudukulathur. The plaintiff in the said

suit (R1 herein) filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 for joint trial of O.S.No.130 of 2022

along with O.S.No.20 of 2021. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.20 of 2021 on the file of the very same Court for the relief of

declaration that certain suit documents are null and void and permanent

injunction. O.S.No.130 of 202 has been filed by the first respondent herein for

the relief of partition and for declaration that certain documents are null and

void. The court below has given the following reason in its order dated

13.02.2024.

“8.Upon the perusal of Exhibit R1, which is the copy of plaint in O.S.No.20 of 2021, it is comes to know that, this 2 nd respondent Mr.Nagalinga Durai has instituted the suit for declaration in regarding 3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

properties and consequential permanent injunction and declaration in regarding documents No.117/2013 dated 05.02.2013, 32/2016 dated 13.01.2016, 213/2020, dated 11.03.2020 as null and void and so the very same reliefs as in O.S.No.130/2022 is found in O.S.No.20 of 2021. Further, in the Suit No.20/2021, Mr.Nagalinga Durai as a plaintiff and Mr.Kannappan, Mrs.Kamatchi Ammal, Mr.Thiruneela Kandan, Mrs.Santhana Lakshmi are the parties of such suit. The said Santhana Lakshmi is the Sub Registrar. Further in the said suit O.S.NO.20/2021, this petitioner was impleaded on 08.06.2023 as 5th defendant. So both the cases are almost containing similar reliefs and between the similar parties and the cause of action also almost similar and in such circumstances, if joint trial is ordered the evidence of both side will be reduced and shaped and this Court can adjudicate both the matters effectively and completely and so this Court is inclined to allow this petition.”

3. I am more than satisfied that the aforesaid reason is sound and good

enough for ordering joint trial of both the suits. The parties are one and the

same; the suit properties is one and the same. The reliefs are broadly identical.

4. In these circumstances, the court below rightly allowed the joint trial.

Interference with the impugned order is not warranted. The civil revision

petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed.

                                                                                                  27.09.2024

                NCC               : Yes / No
                Index             : Yes / No
                Internet          : Yes / No
                rmi

                                                                                  G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis





                                                                                  rmi

                To

                The Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur.









                                                                         27.09.2024




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis