Madras High Court
G.Muthukrishnan vs S.Prabakaran on 1 February, 2024
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
CRP (PD).No.1326 of 2021:
1.G.Muthukrishnan
2.G.Pandurangan
3.G.Gunasekaran
4.S.Sudhakar
5.K.Sidharthan
6.K.Thangabashyam
... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Prabakaran
2.B.Umamaheswari
3.R.Ramamoorthy
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.01.2021 in
I.A.No.158 of 2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2004 on the file of the learned
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore and thereby allow the revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Suresh
For Respondents :Mr.A.Kripakaran
for M/s.V.S.Senthilkumar for R1
M/s.S.Williams for R2
No Appearance for R3
CRP (PD).No.1327 of 2021:
1.G.Muthukrishnan
2.G.Pandurangan
3.G.Gunasekaran
4.S.Sudhakar
5.K.Sidharthan
6.K.Thangabashyam
... Petitioners
vs.
1.S.Prabakaran
2.B.Umamaheswari
3.R.Ramamoorthy
... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.03.2019 in I.A.No.22
of 2019 in O.S.No.92 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional
District Munsif, Cuddalore and thereby allow the revision.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Suresh
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
For Respondents :Mr.A.Kripakaran
for M/s.V.S.Senthilkumar for R1
M/s.S.Williams for R2
No Appearance for R3
COMMONORDER
CRP.No.1326 of 2021 is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking to send for records in O.S.No.225 of 2003, from the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.
2. CRP.No.1327 of 2021 is filed against the order dismissing the application filed by the petitioners seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 herein to answer the interrogatories mentioned in the petition.
3. The petitioners herein filed a suit for declaration that decree obtained in favour of respondents 1 and 2 for selling the property in O.S.No.225 of 2003 was null and void. The petitioners also sought for declaration that two sale deeds executed by 1 st respondent dated 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021 12.12.2003 in favour of defendants 2 and 6 were null and void. The petitioners also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents 1 and 2 from alienating the suit property and other reliefs.
4. The respondents 1 and 2 by way of defence in the additional written statement raised a point that the suit filed by the petitioners was not maintainable without leave under Section 92 of CPC. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.22 of 2019 seeking direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to answer the interrogatories raised by them in the petition. The said application was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, CRP.No.1327 of 2021 is filed.
5. Subsequent to the dismissal of I.A.No.22 of 2019, the petitioners filed I.A.No.158 of 2019 to send for records in earlier suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in O.S.No.225 of 2003 to find out whether leave under Section 92 of CPC was obtained in that suit. The said application was also dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021 the same, CRP.No.1326 of 2021 is filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that when the petitioners served interrogatories to the respondents and the respondents failed to answer the interrogatories, then the petitioners are entitled to request the Court that adverse inference shall be drawn against the respondents. The consequences of respondent's failure to answer the interrogatories shall be decided at the time to final disposal of the suit, but unfortunately the Court below in the impugned order went into the merits of the interrogatories served by the petitioners and rendered a finding that those interrogatories are not necessary to decide the controversy in the lis. The learned counsel further submitted that when the respondents 1 and 2 had taken a definite stand that the suit filed by the petitioners is not maintainable for want of leave under Section 92 of CPC, whether the respondents 1 and 2 obtained leave in the earlier suit filed by them is an important question which can be decided only if the records relating to O.S.No.225 of 2003 is sent for.
5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
7. The petitioner in I.A.No.22 of 2019 indicated three questions:
(i) Whether any application was filed and any order was obtained under Section 92 of Code in O.S.No.225 of 2003 on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore by the 1st respondent;
(ii) And if so produce the certified copy of same producible evidence;
(iii) And if not file an affidavit to that effect within ten days to that effect.
8. If the respondents failed to answer the interrogatories, the legal consequence will follow and the impact of the failure of the respondents to answer the interrogatories is the question to be decided by the Court at the time of final disposal. Therefore, at this stage, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the application filed by the 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021 petitioners by observing the interrogatories served by the petitioners are not necessary to decide the controversy involved in the lis. Whether the failure of the respondents to answer the interrogatories of the petitioners would have impact on the final outcome shall be decided only at the final disposal of the suit. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No.22 of 2019 is set aside and the respondents are given two weeks time from today to answer the question raised by the petitioners. In case, the respondents failed to answer the question raised by the petitioners, the legal consequence of the same shall be decided by the Court at the time of final disposal of the same.
9. In view of the order passed in CRP.No.1327 of 2021, no further orders are necessary in the petition filed by the petitioners seeking to send for the documents in O.S.No.225 of 2003. The petitioners seek the documents in O.S.No.225 of 2003 to find out any leave was obtained by the respondents 1 and 2 in that suit. Now, if the respondents, who have been given time to answer the interrogatories 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021 raised by the petitioners, failed to answer the questions, the legal consequences will follow. Further the petitioners are also entitled to cross examine the witnesses of the respondents in this regard. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners is confirmed. Accordingly CRP.No.1326 of 2021 is dismissed.
01.02.2024
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ub
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
To
The Additional District Munsif,
Cuddalore.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
ub
C.R.P.(PD).Nos.1326 and 1327of 2021
01.02.2024
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis