Madras High Court
S.Saravanan vs M.Dhanalakshmi on 25 October, 2021
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29.07.2021
Pronounced on : 25.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2021
and
CMP(MD) No.3909 of 2021
and
Caveat No.372 of 2021
1.S.Saravanan
2.S.Renuga
3.S.Selvi : Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants
Vs.
1.M.Dhanalakshmi
2.A.Rajapunisha : Respondents / Respondents / Plaintiffs
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the rejection order in un-numbered I.A.No.... of 2021 in
O.S.No.217 of 2019, dated 05.02.2021 by the learned I Additional District
Judge, Madurai.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Nagendran
For Respondents : Mr.B.Rooban
1/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in unnumbered I.A.No..... of 2020 in O.S.No.217 of 2019, dated 05.02.2021 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Madurai, rejecting the petition filed for rejection of plaint, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure.
2.The revision petitioners are the defendants and the respondents/plaintiffs have laid the above suit in O.S.No.217 /2019, claiming the reliefs of declaration and for permanent injunction. The revision petitioners/defendants have filed their written statement and are contesting the suit. Pending trial, the defendants have filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11
(d) CPC to reject the plaint. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, has passed the impugned order, dated 05.02.2021, rejecting the petition. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the defendants have come forward with the present revision.
3.It is evident from the records that the learned trial Judge, after filing the above petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, without taking the petition on file and without hearing the plaintiffs side, has rejected the petition. No doubt, the 2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 impugned order does not affect the plaintiffs in any way. But this Court is constrained to say that when the parties to the lis are very much before the Court, in an application filed by any party, generally the Court is expected to hear the other side and for that purpose, the Court has to necessarily take the petition on file.
4.No doubt, the above rule or principle cannot be applied universally. In cases, where the petition is being filed abusing the process of the Court or in the petitions filed seeking administrative orders or directions for enforcement or implementing any judicial order, there is no need or necessity to hear the other side and the Court can very well reject the application at the first instance in the first category of cases and the Court can very well allow the applications without hearing the other side in the second category of cases.
5.In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the application was filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the same does not fall in the above category of cases. But at the same time, simply because, the petition was rejected without hearing the other side, the impugned order cannot be considered as an illegal order and the same can only be termed as improper.
3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
6.Whatever it is, now coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the plaintiffs are the sisters and are the daughters of one A.Peer Fathima, and that the second defendant is the wife, first defendant is the son and third defendant is the daughter of one K.Selvaraj, who is no more now, power agent of A.Peer Fathima. It is also not in dispute that the said K.Selvaraj died on 26.09.2009 and that the said A.Peer Fathima died on 25.04.2013. The plaintiffs have claimed the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for declaration that the settlement deed dated 27.04.2010, two sale deeds dated 08.01.2010 and two sale agreements dated 16.07.2007 and 08.08.2008 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner to any person.
7.Before entering into further discussion, it is necessary to refer the respective cases put forth by the parties, which are necessary for deciding the present revision:
4/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 Plaintiffs' case :
(a) The suit property and other properties were originally belonged to the plaintiffs' mother A.Peer Fathima and she divided the said land into several plots. The said A.Peer Fathima appointed the said K.Selvaraj as her power agent in respect of 7 plots only, vide power of attorney deed, dated 28.03.2007.
In pursuance of the said power of attorney, the said Selvaraj has executed two sale deeds in respect of two plots and settled the accounts to the said A.Peer Fathima. The said K.Selvaraj died on 26.09.2009 and hence, the power of attorney given by the said A.Peer Fathima stand automatically cancelled. The remaining 5 plots of the suit property, which remained unsold stand in the name of A.Peer Fathima.
(b)In 2013, the said Peer Fathima visited the suit property and cleaned the same and at that time, the neighbors of the suit property informed Peer Fathima that the said 5 plots were also sold to the first defendant by the deceased Selvaraj. Immediately, Peer Fathima applied for Encumbrance Certificate on 05.03.2013 and came to know that the first defendant had taken two sale deeds on 08.01.2010, as if his father was alive and executed the same. The first defendant, on the basis of the said sale deeds, executed a gift settlement deed dated 27.04.2010 in favour of his mother, the second defendant and that the said document was attested by his sister, the third defendant. 5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
(c) The said Peer Fathima filed a petition in March 2013 before the District Registrar (Administration) Madurai North, for cancelling the said two sale deeds and gift settlement deed and the District Registrar passed an order, dated 04.05.2015 by giving a finding that the said documents are forged documents and are liable to be annulled and also directed the Sub Registrar, Othakadai, to take action to register a criminal case in this regard. Since the Peer Fathima had died on 26.04.2013, her daughters/the plaintiffs herein filed an application and at their instance, the District Registrar issued an erratum dated 25.11.2016.
(d)The first defendant has no right or title whatsoever in the suit property and the sale deeds allegedly executed in favour of the first defendant and the gift settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant are void ab initio. Since the alleged documents sheds cloud over the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit to declare their title to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction and also for declaration that the sale deeds, gift settlement deed and the sale agreements are all null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining alienation or encumbering of the suit property. 6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
8. The case of the defendants :
(a) The first defendant's father Selvaraj got the power of attorney deed from the said Peer Fathima on 28.03.2007 for 7 plots paying the entire sale consideration of Rs.31,52,900/- for which, she has also issued a sale receipt on the same day. The said Peer Fathima has also given absolute rights over the 7 plots in favour of the said Selvaraj consenting to alienate them. On the basis of the said sale receipt, the said Selvaraj was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 7 plots from 2007 onwards.
(b)The said Selvaraj sold two plots in favour of third parties in 2007 and was keeping 5 plots in his possession. He executed two sale agreements in respect of remaining 5 plots in favour of the first defendant in 2007 and 2008 and thereafter, he sold 5 plots in favour of the first defendant and on that basis, the first defendant executed a gift settlement deed in favour of his mother.
(c) As per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, no civil suit can be filed for the relief after the expiry of limitation period prescribed by law i.e., which is barred by law.
(d) In the plaint itself, they have admitted that the fraudulent transactions were made in respect of the suit property on 08.01.2010 and that they came to 7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 know about the same in 2013 itself. Since the suit has been filed for declaration of the fraudulent transaction as null and void on 08.08.2019 after the lapse of 6 years, is clearly barred by time. Though the plaintiffs have alleged in the plaint that they have filed the suit within 3 years from the date of the order of the District Registrar, the same is incorrect and not sustainable in law. As per Article 59 of the Indian Limitation Act, any suit for declaration of the annulment of any sale deed or sale agreement or gift settlement deed should have been filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the said transactions. Since the suit itself is hopelessly barred by limitation, the suit is liable to be rejected.
9.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the plaint averments would reveal that they have filed the suit within 3 years from the date of order passed by the District Registrar and as such, the suit is within time, that though the plaintiffs have specifically admitted that they came to know about the alleged transactions in the year 2013 itself, they have filed the above suit only in 2019 after the lapse of 6 years, that since Article 59 of Indian Limitation Act is clearly applicable to the case on hand and since the above suit has not been filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the transactions, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. 8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
10.He would further contend that the trial Court has wrongly applied the provision of Section 65 of the Indian Limitation Act and stated that since 12 years limitation is available for declaration of title to the property, the plaint cannot be rejected. No doubt, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, though the learned trial Judge has not specifically stated about the Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act, he has observed that the declaration of title to the property is having 12 years limitation and as such, the plaint cannot be partly rejected for the declaration as to the nullity of the documents alone. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the relief of declaration of title to the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction, would only attract Article 58 of Limitation Act.
11.Considering the above, the main contention of the revision petitioners/defendants is that since the plaintiffs have not filed the suit within 3 years from the date of knowledge of the alleged transactions, as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, the reliefs claimed are barred by limitation and as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. As rightly pointed out by the learned trial Judge, the plaintiffs have not only claimed the relief of declaration with respect to the nullity of the documents, but also declaration with respect to their 9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer Article 58 and 59 as well as Article 65 of the Indian Limitation Act.
Description of suit Period of Time from which period begins to
limitation run
58. To obtain any other declaration. Three years When the right to sue first accrues.
59. To cancel or set aside an Three years When the facts entitling the plaintiff
instrument or decree or for the to have the instrument or decree
rescission of a contract. cancelled or set aside or the contract
rescinded first become known to
him.
65. For possession of immovable Twelve years When the possession of the
property or any interest therein based defendant becomes adverse to the
on title. plaintiff.
12.It is pertinent to note that in the first division of schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Part III deals with suits relating to declarations, Part IV deals with suits relating to decrees and instruments and Part V deals with suits relating to immovable property. In Part III, suits relating to declarations, Article 56 deals with the suits to declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered and Article 57 deals with the suits to obtain declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid and the remaining Article in the said Part III 58 deals with any other declaration. No doubt, Article 113 in Part X deals with any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in 10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 the said schedule and according to the said Article, period of limitation is 3 years and the same is to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrues.
13.It is pertinent to note that the issue of limitation qua challenge to a document falls under two categories, a voidable document and a void document. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Singh and Others Vs. Birbal and others reported in 2006 (5) SCC 353 and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder :
“Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 thus, refers to both void and voidable document. It provides for a discretionary relief.
When a document is valid, no question arises of its cancellation. When a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be necessary as the same is non- est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity.
Once, however, a suit is filed by a plaintiff for cancellation of a transaction, it would be governed by Article 59. Even if Article 59 is not attracted, the residuary Article would be.
Article 59 would be attracted when coercion, undue influence, misappropriation or fraud which the plaintiff asserts is required to be proved. Article 59 would apply to the case of such 11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 instruments. It would, therefore, apply where a document is primia facie valid. It would not apply only to instruments which are presumptively invalid.”
14.Considering the above, it is clear that when a document is obtained by collusion, fraud or undue influence, then the document is voidable and will have to be challenged within a period of limitation as per Articles 57 to 59 of the Limitation Act. But if the document is void ab initio, then the question of seeking declaration that the said document is void or for setting aside the document or the issue of limitation for filing a suit to challenge a void document does not arise at all.
15.In the present case, as already pointed out, the plaintiffs have challenged two sale deeds on the ground that the said documents are shown to be executed by the first defendant's father Selvaraj on 08.01.2010, but he was not alive on that date and had died on 26.09.2009 itself. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, if the plaintiffs are able to prove the above ground of attack that the alleged executor of the sale deeds, Selvaraj was not alive on the date of sale deeds, then the sale deeds must be taken as void documents and if that be the situation, then the question of invoking Article 59 of the Limitation Act or any other provision of the Limitation Act does not arise at all.
12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
16.It is settled position of law that a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession or for recovery of possession alone, Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable and as such, the suit is to be instituted within 12 years from the date, when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. But the dispute is what will be the period of limitation, if a suit is filed for declaration of title to the property and for consequential permanent injunction restraining alienation or encumbering the property or restraining the interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
17.As already pointed out, according to the revision petitioners/defendants, Article 58 alone is applicable to the declaration and injunction, now claimed in the present suit and that since the same has been filed after the lapse of three years, the suit is barred by time. Even logically speaking, if a person, who is out of possession files a suit for declaring his title and to recover the possession, he will have 12 years period of limitation as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act, but at the same time, if a person who is in continuous possession of the property files a suit to declare his title to the property and for permanent injunction restraining interference or restraining the alienation, can it be said that he will have only 3 years, invoking Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
18.It is pertinent to note that, as already pointed out, Part III of the first division deals with declaratory suits and the 1st two Articles in Part III are with respect to the forged instruments and adoption and that the remaining third Article i.e., 58 is a residuary and relates to any other declaration. But Part V of the first division specifically contemplates the period of limitation for suits relating to immovable property. It is necessary to refer the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Muniammal And Ors. vs Venkitammal And Others, reported in 1992(2) MLJ 425.
“9. We must give credit to the learned Counsel for the respondents that he realised in the course of the arguments that Article 58 of the Limitation Act shall have no application on the facts of this case. The error which the trial court committed in applying Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which is applied to suits relating to decrees and instruments was no doubt rectified by the court below, but the error committed in applying Article 58 is obvious. Article 58 falls in Part III of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. This part deals with suits relating to declaration. Part V deals with suits relating to immovable property. Article 65 thereof reads that for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title, the period of limitation is twelve years. The instant suit based upon Ex.A-1 is undoubtedly a suit for interest based on title in immovable property. The period of limitation in such a situation will be 12 years and not three years.
14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
10. The view that we have taken thus leads to the irresistible conclusion that the courts below erred in holding that the first defendant was a benamidar and the title in reality vested in the second defendant and not in the first defendant and so Ex.A-1 executed by the first defendant conveyed no property to the plaintiffs. Since the suit concerned immovable property and interest therein, the limitation period for the suit was 12 years and not 3 years as held by the courts below.”
19.A single Judge of Andra Pradesh High Court in Mechineni Chokka Rao And Others. vs Sattu Sattamma, reported in 2006 (1) ALD 116, has held as follows :
“11. One shall not be oblivious of the fact that part-V of first division specifically deals with category of suits relating to immovable property. Coming in the domain of part-V, Articles 64 and 65 specifically deal with the period of limitation to institute a suit for possession of immovable property based on previous possession and to institute a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title.
Having regard to the categorisation sought to be made in the Schedule, although Part-Ill of the first division thereof apparently deals with suits relating to declarations, that part does not deal with suits relating to immovable property 15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 inasmuch as Part-V thereof exclusively deals with the suits pertaining to immovable property, prima facie it appears, therefore, that notwithstanding the fact that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration but the suit is in respect of an immovable property, Article 58 of the Act has no application, instead Articles 61 to 67, which specifically deal with the suits relating to immovable property, seem to be applicable.
12. A suit for the relief of declaration simplicitor is not maintainable as per the mandate contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. If the suit is filed for declaration of title over an immovable property and for the consequential relief of either possession or injunctions, if it is said that still Article 58 governs, it does not stand to reason, nay appears to be somewhat odd. A suit for possession or a suit for perpetual injunction obviously is governed by the relevant Article in Part- V of the first division when that suit pertains to immovable property. Article 58, in my considered view, will not fall foul of Article 65 of the Act. In the event of any inconsistency in between the two Articles mentioned in the Schedule, the endeavour of the Court shall be to give a harmonious construction having due regard to the scheme and object of the Act.
13. The problem can be viewed in a different dimension. The right over an immovable property will get extinguished as can be seen from Section 27 of the Act only after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing the suit for possession as per 16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 Articles 64 and 65 of the Act. Therefore, if the period falls short of the requisite period of 12 years the right over an immovable property will not get extinguished. When the person has a right over an immovable property which right is not extinguished as yet, he can lay the suit in respect of an immovable property even praying for the relief of declaration at any time within the period of 12 years at the end of which, his right would get extinguished. When we consider this clear mandate contained in Section 27 of the Act, it becomes manifest that a declaratory relief in respect of an immovable property can be sought for at any time within the period of 12 years after which the right will get automatically extinguished, notwithstanding the fact that Article 58, the residuary Article for filing declaratory suits, prescribes a period of three years limitation. Thus, when we look, at the scheme of the Act, the above view seems to be plausible and reasonable qua the contrary view sought to be canvassed.
....
20. The Law Commission in its 89th Report recommended for the amendment of Article 58 by adding the words "without seeking further relief after the word "declaration" in the first column of Article 58 so as to avoid any confusion. However, so far no amendment has been brought in by the Parliament as recommended.
17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
21. The preponderance of authority which holds the view that in respect of declaratory suits pertaining to immovable property, the period of limitation is governed by Articles 64 and 65 but not Article 58 of the Act is in conformity with the Scheme of the Act, as discussed hereinabove.
22. The question seems to be a mixed question of law and fact, having regard to the matrix of the case as set out in the plaint. Per se if the suit is barred by limitation, there can be no difficulty for the Court to dismiss the suit on that ground, notwithstanding the absence of any plea in regard thereto inter alia in the written statement filed by the adversary but if the matter requires some evidence for effective adjudication of the point of limitation, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited at the threshold and it is only at the culmination of hearing of the suit, the point of limitation can be adjudicated upon. When that being the view, the principle that relief is barred by limitation and, therefore, amendment cannot be allowed, will not uniformly apply to all cases. Where the point of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, the amendment can be allowed, appears to be the law on the point. I am reinforced in my above view by a judgment of the Apex Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil , Ragu Thilak D. John v. S. Rayappan 2001 (2) ALD 31 (SC) : (2001) 2 SCC 472 and Narne Rama Murthy v. Ravula Somasundaram (2005) 6 SCC
614.” 18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
20. Considering the above legal position, it cannot be said that Article 58 of the Limitation Act is to be applied automatically and it is to be seen as to which of the Article, whether Article 58 or 65 is applicable to the case on hand.
21.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C. Natrajan vs Ashim Bai & Another reported in 2007 (14) SCC 183, has dealt with the scope of applicability of the Limitation Act vis-vis Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, after referring to some decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as follows:
“9. Applicability of one or the other provision of the limitation act per se cannot be decisive for the purpose of determining the question as to whether the suit is barred under one or the other article contained in the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act.
10.The question which was raised before the learned Trial Judge was different from the question raised before the High Court. Before the learned Trial Judge, as noticed hereinbefore, the provisions of the Limitation Act were brought in with reference to the identification of the property. It was not contended that the suit was barred by limitation in terms of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court, therefore, in our opinion, ex facie committed an error in arriving on the aforementioned finding. The scope of applicability of the 19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 Limitation Act vis-`-vis Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been considered in some recent decisions of this Court to which we may advert to.
....
19. We have noticed hereinbefore that the defendant, inter alia, on the plea of identification of the suit land vis-a-vis the deeds of sale, under which the plaintiff has claimed his title, claimed possession. The defendant did not accept that the plaintiff was in possession. An issue in this behalf is, therefore, required to be framed and the said question is, therefore, required to be gone into. Limitation would not commence unless there has been a clear and unequivocal threat to the right claimed by the plaintiff. In a situation of this nature, in our opinion, the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) was not maintainable. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent may have to be gone into at a proper stage. Lest it may prejudice the contention of one party or the other at the trial, we resist from making any observations at this stage. ”
22.The above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Considering the main controversy as to whether Article 58 or 65 is applicable to the case on hand as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the trial Court is duty bound to consider the same, not at this point of time, but at the trial.
20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017
23.As already pointed out, the main defence of the respondents/plaintiffs is that they have filed the suit within three years from the date of the order passed by the District Registrar, giving a finding that the documents, now under challenge, are forged documents and are liable to be annulled. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the period of pendency of petition before the District Registrar, i.e., the period between the date, on which the application was filed before the District Registrar and the date on which the order was passed by the District Registrar i.e., on 25.11.2016 shall be excluded as per Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for the purpose of computing the limitation and that if the same is excluded, the period of limitation should be calculated only from 25.11.2016 and as the plaintiffs have laid the suit on 08.08.2019, the same is well within the period of limitation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act and exclude the period spent before the District Registrar, can be gone into only at the trial and not at this stage.
24.Viewing from any angle, the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected cannot be gone into at this stage and is a matter for trial. Hence, this Court concludes that 21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 the decision of the learned trial Judge in rejecting the relief claimed by the defendants cannot be found fault with and consequently, the revision which is devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
25. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.10.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No das To The I Additional District Judge, Madurai.
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.22/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2017 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das Pre-delivery order made in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.721 of 2021 and CMP(MD) No.3909 of 2021 25.10.2021 23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/