Madras High Court
D.Manoharan vs J.Pandian on 26 August, 2014
Author: R.Mala
Bench: R.Mala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA C.R.P(PD).No.1295 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 1.D.Manoharan 2.A.Arjunan 3.Krishnakumari .. Petitioners Vs. 1.J.Pandian 2.V.Barna Bass .. Respondents Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.01.2014 in I.A.No.153 of 2014 in O.S.No.1162 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Arulmozhi For Respondents : Mr.K.Sellathurai O R D E R
Civil Revision petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.01.2014 in I.A.No.153 of 2014 in O.S.No.1162 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The revision petitioners as the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are absolute owners of the suit property bearing Door No.33/1 and 2 Balaji Nagar, VIIth Cross Street, Kolathur Village, Chennai-99 and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same stating that the properties are originally owned to Vengattamma and she died on 04.04.1964. She is having two daughters namely, Sakunthala and Kanniammal and a son by name, Govindaraj. Son-in-law of Kanniammal is the first plaintiff, and her husband is the second plaintiff and her daughter is third plaintiff. Vengattamma purchased the suit property on 27.05.1952 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since both Vengattamma and her husband Munusamy died, the plaintiffs succeeded the property. In pursuance of the oral partition held in the year 1982, properties were allotted to the plaintiffs and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the first defendant attempted to interfere with their possession, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit for declaration and injunction.
3.The first defendant filed the written statement and contested the suit stating that the suit is barred by Res-judicata. There was a previous suit in O.S.No.8333 of 1992 between the same parties and the suit was disposed of, against which, first defendant preferred A.S.No.119 of 2000 and that appeal was allowed by setting aside O.S.No.8333 of 1992. So the present suit is hit by Res-judicata.
4.After framing of issues, the first plaintiff/Manoharan filed the proof affidavit and at that time, he has also filed an application in I.A.No.153 of 2014 to issue subpoena to P.A. (General), Office of the District Collector, District Collectorate, Kancheepuram and to direct him to produce the documents of old Paimash numbers connected with the S.F.No.135(1) part and 135(4) part in Kolathur Village.
5.The defendants filed the counter stating that as per the order in C.R.P.No.1371 of 2011, dated 05.07.2011, the High Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within three months. It was further stated that the plaintiffs are only third parties and they have trespassed into the suit property and they may very well obtain revenue records instead of that they filed the present application, only with a view to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, against which, the present revision petition is preferred.
6.Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that to correlate old paimash number with the present suit survey number, the documents are necessary, so the plaintiffs are forced to file the application to issue subpoena to the P.A.(General), Office of the District Collector, to produce the documents. But the trial Court has not considered the above aspect in proper perspective and dismissed the application. Therefore, he prayed for allowing of the revision petition.
7.Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that to correlate the suit survey numbers with old paimash numbers, the plaintiffs may very well obtain 'A' Register from the revenue authority. It is further stated that the trial Court has received a letter dated 04.01.2012 given by the P.A. (General), Office of the District Collector, Chennai, wherein it was stated that the paimash numbers correlating the old S.F.No.135 (1)Part and 135(4) part is not available. The paimash numbers are the tentative field numbers which we used before survey and there is no correlation details available from the paimash numbers to the old survey numbers. So no purpose will be served to issue subpoena to him. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.
8.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papers.
9.The present application is filed by the plaintiffs to issue subpoena to P.A. (General), Office of the District Collector, District Collectorate, Kancheepuram to correlate old paimash number with old S.F.Nos.135(1) part and 135(4) part in the suit property.
10.In para-6 of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it was mentioned as follows:
the paimash numbers correlating the old S.F.No.135(1) part and 135(4) part is not available. The paimash numbers are the tentative field numbers which we used before survey and there is no correlation details available from the paimash numbers to the old survey numbers.
11.Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs may very well obtain the certified copy from the revenue authority to substantiate and correlate the survey numbers of the suit property. Furthermore, identity of the suit property is not disputed. So no purpose will be served to summon the witness. Hence, I am of the view, the trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion. The impugned order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference and the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
12.At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents sought for early disposal of the suit, since the suit is of the year 2003.
13.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 24.01.2014 in I.A.No.153 of 2014 in O.S.No.1162 of 2003 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving fair opportunity to both sides. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
26.08.2014 Internet:Yes kj R.MALA,J.
Kj To XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
C.R.P(PD).No.1295 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 201426.08.2014