Madras High Court
M.Murugan vs The Society Father Of Holy Cross on 5 August, 2024
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020
M.Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Society Father of Holy Cross,
A Registered Society,
Represented by its Director,
Office At,
Moreau Illam,
Fathima Nagar (P.O.),
E.Pudur (Via),
Trichy - 620 012.
2.The Society of Fathers of Holy Cross,
A Registered Society,
Represented by its Director,
S. Panner Selvam, S/o. Sagayaraj,
Office at Moreau Illam,
Fathima Nagar (P.O.),
E.Pudur (Via),
Trichy – 620 012. ... Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
set aside the order dated 21.09.2020 made in COP.SR.No.52 of 2020 in
COP.No.3 of 2020, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur
and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. D.Senthil
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Keeranur in COP.SR.No.52 of 2020 in COP.No.3 of 2020, dated 21.09.2020.
2.The petitioner has filed an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C that the Court has registered a complaint as against the respondents that a fraud has been played ín the Court. The second respondent has filed a Caveat Petition in COP.No.3 of 2020 on 29.01.2020 and notice was ordered on 07.02.2020. In the pre-caveat notice, it has been wrongly mentioned as District Munsif Court, Iluppur, when the case has really been filed before the District Munsif Court, Keeranur. The petitioner has received an order from the District 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020 Munsif Court, Keeranur in COP No.3 of 2020. Therefore, this petitioner has filed an application before the District Munsif Court, Keeranur that a fraud has been played and an interim order has been obtained behind his back by filing an application in his name, before the District Munsif Court, Iluppur. Therefore, a case has to be registered as against the respondents for the offence under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and Sections 192, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of IPC. However, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner at the SR Stage itself, by referring the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Nirmal Chandra Dutta Vs Girindra Narayana Roy and others, reported in AIR 1978 CAL492.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when an application is filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, the trial Court ought to have adopted the procedures as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. However, without doing so, the trial Court has dismissed the application at the SR stage itself. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020
4.This Court considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the trial Court.
5.The trial Court, before dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, has discussed about Section 148A of CPC and the Judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in Nirmal Chandra Dutta Vs Girindra Narayana Roy and others, reported in AIR 1978 CAL492 and the relevant portion is extracted as under:
“The object is to safeguard the interest against an order that may be passed against a person, who may not be necessary party, but may be affected by the order that may be passed in a suit or proceedings” “It introduces a useful provision for a caveat by authorizing a party to intimate to the Court of his intention to have notice of intended application by the adverse party so that exparte order on application may not be obtained by an adverse party 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020 without such notice'' The trial Court has observed that no other material information have been altered except the location of the Court and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in view of the caveat petition filed by the respondents.
6.Therefore, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the learned District Munisf, Keeranur, in rejecting the request of the petitioner, on the ratio laid down in Nirmal Chandra Dutta's case cited supra. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
05.08.2024 Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. vrn To The District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020 B.PUGALENDHI, J.
vrn Order made in CRP(PD)(MD)No.1070 of 2020 05.08.2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis