Madras High Court
K.Janakiraman vs Padmavathi on 4 July, 2022
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022 and
CMP(MD) No.5505 of 2022
K.Janakiraman ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Padmavathi
2.T.Ravichandran
3.Babu
4.Geetha ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set
aside the fair and decreetal order made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.931 of
2007, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, dated
03.12.2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 931 of 2007 as against the fair and decreetal order of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy in I.A.No.2 of 2021. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022
2.The respondents/defendants have filed the Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2021, under Rule 49 of Civil Rules of Practice r/w Section 151 of C.P.C, to issue summons to one Narayanan to produce the original Othi Kadan Pathiram before the trial Court. The said application was allowed by the trial Court, despite the objections of the petitioner/plaintiff. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that there is no nexus between the plaintiff and the so called Narayanan and the respondents attempted to add the said Narayanan as a party to the suit in I.A.No.535 of 2008 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Similarly, another attempt of the defendant to mark the photocopy of the alleged Othi Deed in I.A.No.559 of 2015 was also dismissed by the trial Court. The application filed by the defendants in I.A.No.940 of 2015, to receive the Othi Deed was also dismissed. As against the orders passed in I.A.Nos.535 of 2008, 559 of 2015 and 940 of 2015, the respondents/defendants have not preferred any revision petition and the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022 aforesaid orders have become final. According to the petitioner, only in order to drag on the suit proceedings further, the petition has been taken out under Rule 49 of Civil Rules of Practice and the trial Court has also passed the order without considering objections of the petitioner/plaintiff and also without considering the earlier orders passed by the trial Court on the above Interlocutory Applications. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also pointed out that the suit is of the year 2007 and the suit proceedings has been purposely dragging on by the defendants by filing the applications one after another. Hence, the order of the trial Court has to be set aside.
4.This Court considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed on record. Since no adverse order is going to be passed as against the respondents, notice to them is dispensed with.
5.It is seen from the records that the defendants have filed the following applications:-
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022
1) I.A.No.535 of 2008 filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead one Narayanan as a party to the suit.
2) I.A.No.559 of 2015 filed under Section 65(A) of Indian Evidence act r/w Section 151 of C.P.C to permit to mark the photocopy of the Othi Deed.
3) I.A.No.940 of 2015, under Order VIII Rule 1(A) (3), to receive the photocopy of the said Othi deed.
All all the above applications filed by the defendants have been dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, another application has been filed by the defendants under Rule 49 of Civil Rules of Practice r/w Section 151 of C.P.C in I.A.No.2 of 2021, for the relief of issuing summons to Narayanan to produce the original Othi Kadan Pathiram and the same has been considered by the trial Court in the light of the provisions under Order XI Rule 14 of Civil Procedure Code. The Order XI Rule 14 of CPC enables the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right, and the court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022 manner as shall appear just. Finally, the trial Court held that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent, if the petition is allowed and in order to arrive at a just conclusion, the trial Court allowed the application.
6.In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.931 of 2007. However, considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2007, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the proceedings in O.S.No.931 of 2007 and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
04.07.2022 Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn To The II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vrn Order made in CRP(PD)(MD)No.1333 of 2022 04.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis