Madras High Court
R.Karthik vs R.Mayilvani on 6 April, 2016
Author: V.M.Velumani
Bench: V.M.Velumani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.04.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI C.R.P(MD)No.740 of 2016(NPD) 1.R.Karthik 2.R.Rathi .. Petitioners Vs. 1.R.Mayilvani 2.P.Ramiah 3.K.Rajeswari 4.Arumugam 5.Balamurugan 6.Ganesan 7.Kalaiselvi .. Respondents Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 1012.2015, made in Transfer O.P.No.13 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai. !For Petitioner : Mr.P.T.Narendravasan ^For Respondent : :ORDER
This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 10.12.2015, made in Transfer O.P.No.13 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai.
2. The respondents 4 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Velu. The said Velu filed O.S.No.473 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam for ejectment against one Rajeswari, who is the tenant of the property and the second respondent herein, who is the father of the petitioners. The said suit was decreed and ejectment order was passed. In the meantime, the said Velu died. The respondents 4 to 7 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased Velu. The petitioners and first respondent filed E.A.Nos.99/2011, 100/2011 and 101/2011 in E.P.No.26 of 2011, for stay of the execution proceedings and claim petitions on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam. The suit filed by the petitioners and the first respondent in O.S.No.280 of 2010, on the file of the II-Additional Sub Judge, Camp Court at Thirumangalam, for partition against the said Velu and the second respondent, for partition is riped for trial. They filed Transfer O.P.No.13 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge for transferring E.A.Nos.99/2011, 100/2011 and 101/2011 in E.P.No.26 of 2011, from the file of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, to be tried along with the suit in O.S.No.280 of 2010 pending on the file of the II- Additional Sub Judge,Camp Court, Thirumangalam for joint trial.
3. The respondents 4 to 7 contended that without complying the conditional order, dated 14.03.2012, made in E.P.No.26 of 2011, passed by the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, directing the petitioners and first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- before any one of the nationalised banks, for a period of two years, on or before 18.04.2012, as a condition for stay of EP and suppressing the said fact, they filed Transfer OP and obtained stay of EP. Their intention is only to prolong the issue. The learned District Judge, considering the facts and materials on record, dismissed the Transfer OP. Against that order of dismissal, present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam, is the competent authority to hear and pass orders in the EP. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the petitioners and the first respondent filed Transfer OP for joint trial only to avoid conflicting decisions by two different courts and with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioners and the first respondent have filed E.A.Nos.99/2011, 100/2011 and 101/2011 in E.P.No.26 of 2011 for stay of the execution proceedings and claim petitions on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thirumangalam. They also filed suit for partition in O.S.No.280 of 2010. The issue involved in both the proceedings are different. Further, E.P.No.26 of 2011, is for execution of decree of ejectment. The suit filed by the petitioners and the first respondent is for partition. In the circumstances, the question of joint trial to avoid conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings did not arise. Further, E.P.No.26 of 2010 is to execute the decree already passed. As far as the suit filed by the petitioners and the first respondent is concerned, the same is riped for trial. In the circumstances, the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the facts and dismissed the applications. There is no irregularity or illegality in the said order, warranting interference by this Court.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs.
To The Principal District Court, Madurai.
.