Madras High Court
A.Thulasi Kumari (Deceased) vs K.Deenadayalan ( Deceased) on 6 December, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.04.2019
DELIVERED ON : 30.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
CRP.NPD.Nos.1350 to 1352 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and C.M.P.No. 2988 of 2018
A.Thulasi Kumari (Deceased)
A.Prakash .. Petitioner
vs.
1.K.Deenadayalan ( Deceased)
2.K.Santhanakrishnan
3.V.Rukumani
4.S.Jasyalakshmi
5.Dhanapal
6.D.Neelavathi
7.D.Balaji
8.D.Dinesh
(R6 to R8 brought on record as LRS of the deceased
first respondent viz., K.Deenadayalan vide
order dated 06.12.2017 made in
CMP.Nos.4523 to 4525 of 2017 .. Respondents
PRAYER in CRP.NPD.No.1350 of 2014: Civil Revision petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal
order dated 31.01.2014 made in I.A.No.18700 of 2009 in I.A.No.15222 of 2007
in O.S.No.6147 of 2005 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
PRAYER in CRP.NPD.No.1351 of 2014: Civil Revision petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal
order dated 31.01.2014 made in I.A.No.15222 of 2007 in O.S.No.6147 of 2005
on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
PRAYER in CRP.NPD.No.1352 of 2014 : Civil Revision petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal
order dated 31.01.2014 made in I.A.No.1962 of 2012 in I.A.No.15222 of 2007
in O.S.No.6147 of 2005 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Srinivas
(in all CRPs.)
For R2 to R4. 6 to 8 : M/s.Hema Sampath,SC
for M/s.R.Meenal
For R5 : No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
By this common order all the three civil revision petitions are being disposed.
2. These civil revision petitions have been filed by one A.Prakash, who claims to be the adopted son of the plaintiff viz., A.Thulasi Kumari in http://www.judis.nic.in 3 O.S.No.6147 of 2005 nefpre the XVII Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. After the preliminary decree was passed on 02.04.2007, plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari died on 2.12.2008.
3. The said suit was filed by the deceased plaintiff to partition family properties amongst six siblings. Respondents 1 to 5 were the defendants. The 1st defendant has since deceased, pending disposal of the present civil revisions and therefore the respondent Nos.6 to 8 were impleaded and brought on record as legal heirs of the 1st respondent pursuant to an order dated 06.12.2017 of this Court.
4. In the said suit, the 1st and 2nd respondent filed their written statement and objected to the partition of the suit schedule properties while the respondent Nos.3 to 5 ( Defendant Nos.3-5) filed their written statement stating that they had no objection to the property being partitioned before as prayed for in the plaint.
5. After the preliminary decree was passed on 02.04.2007, the original plaintiff viz.,A.Thulasi Kumari filed I.A.No.15221 of 2007 under Order XXVI Rule 13 of C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 suit schedule property the into 6 equal shares and for grant of 1/6th share to all the parties in the suit property. I.A.No.15221 of 2007 was ordered on 21.01.2008 consequent to which Advocate V.Malleswari was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property.
6. On 22.08.2008, the Advocate Commissioner served a notice for conducting inspection of the property. Since Respondent No 3 to 5 were represented by the counsel, notice was received by him on their behalf. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 however could not be served as the door was locked.
7. On 22.08.2008, the Advocate Commissioner filed her report stating that the property was indivisible. On 28.2.2008, the 5th respondent (D5) executed a release deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became entitled to 2/6th share in the suit schedule property. Unfortunately, before preliminary decree could be passed the plaintiff died became intestate on 02.12.2008
8. On 12.5.2009, the deceased plaintiff's husband R.Adikesavan executed a deed with the biological parents of the petitioner in a bid to officially record adoption of the petitioner by them ostensibly made on http://www.judis.nic.in 5 3.9.1989. It records the adoption was made, after observing the formalities and rituals in accordance with the Hindu rites and custom after performing Datha Homem.
9. The deceased plaintiff's husband R Adikesavan thereafter executed a settlement deed dated 16.6.2009 wherein he transferred one half of the 2/6th undivided share in the suit property in favour of the petitioner and recorded transfer of possession to the petitioner. It was executed under the underlying assumption that the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff and her husband R.Adhikesavan.
10. All these documents including the release deed were prepared by Mr. K.C.Krishnamoorthy, the original counsel for Respondent No 3 to 5 on 25.6.2009. Meanwhile, the deceased plaintiff’s husband R.Adikesavan also died on 25.06.2009.
11. After the death of the deceased plaintiff’s husband on 25.6.2009, the petitioner herein filed I.A.18700 of 2009 under Order 22 Rule 3 to implead himself in I.A.15222 of 2007 for passing a final decree in the above suit filed by the deceased plaintiff.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
12. There, the first and the second respondent remained absent and were set exparte. No objection was given by Mr. K.C.Krishnamoorthy as the counsel for Respondent No 3 to 5 for impleading the petitioners.
13. On 31.5.2011 a fresh warrant was issued to the Advocate Commissioner to determine the market value of the property after following due procedure and to file a report at the earliest. The case was adjourned to 28.6.2011.
14. On 7.7.2011, the Advocate Commissioner issued notice to inspect the suit schedule property on 18.8.2011. Notice was again received by Mr.K.C.Krishnamoorthy as the counsel for Respondent No 3 to 5.
15. The Advocate Commissioner by her report fixed the ground value of the property as Rs.47,52,000/- and the value of the building Rs.10,80,000/-totalling to Rs.58,32,000/-.
16. On 21.11.2011, an order was passed in I.A.15222 of 2007 where by the existence of release deed dated 28.8.2008 was recorded. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.38,88,000/- while permitting http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to withdraw a sum of Rs.9, 72, 000/- each from the aforesaid amount. In the said proceeding Respondent Nos. 1 &2 ( D1 and D2) again remained exparte.
17. In January 2012, the petitioner however filed I.A 1962 of 2012 to review the final decree to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed in his favour. In the said proceeding also Respondent No 1-2 ( D1 and D2) again remained ex parte.
18. On 13.2.2012, Respondent No. 1-4 were directed to execute sale deed and hand over possession of the property to the petitioner.
19. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereafter filed the interlocutory applications as detailed below :-
S.No. Applications Prayer
1 I.A.No.8664/2012 To set aside the review order in
I.A.No.18700 of 2009 to implead the
petitioner.
2 I.A.No.8665/2012 To condone delay of 15 days to set
aside the exparte final decree in
I.A.No.15222 of 2007 on 21.11.2011.
3 I.A.No.8666/2012 To condone the delay of 15 days in
filing to set aside the order in
I.A.No.1962 of 2012.
4 I.A.No.8667/2012 To set aside the review order dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
13.02.2012 in I.A.No.1962 of 2012
directing the rest of the defendants to
execute the sale deed in favour of the
petitioner.
5 I.A.No.8668/2012 To set aside the review order in
I.A.No.18700 of 2009 to implead the
petitioner.
20. A common fair and separate decretal order dated 06.09.2013 was passed by the lower court the above mentioned Interim application allowing all the applications filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (D1 to 4) thereby setting aside the final decree dated 21.11.2011 passed in I.A.No.15222 of 2007, impleading of the petitioner ordered on 17.11.2009 and order dated 13.02.2012 in I.A.No 1962 of 2012 directing them to execute the sale deed.
21. Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No 18700 2009 (impleading application filed by the petitioner), I.A.No.15222 of 2007 setting aside (final decree dated) and order in I.A.1962 of 2012 to review the final decree dated 21.11.2011 in I.A.No. 15222 of 2007) the present civil revision petition have been filed by the petitioner . The petitioner claims to be adopted son of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and her deceased husband R.Adikesavan.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
22. In the course of the proceeding before this Court the petitioner also filed a separate type set of documents to show that he is indeed the adopted son of deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and her deceased husband R.Adikesavan.
23. They are transfer certificate issued by the school, LIC policy 9.1.1995 taken by the petitioner in the year 1994, wherein the deceased plaintiff A Thulasi Kumari was shown as his mother and the beneficiary, driving license of the petitioner dated 11.2.1998 and Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of the petitioner 1998 year, wherein he has been shown as the son Mr.R.Adikesavan wedding card, extract from the passbook of Post Office monthly saving declaring R.Adikesavan as his father etc., wherein the petitioner has been shown as the son of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and her deceased husband R.Adikesavan apart from wedding photographs of the petitioner. .However, these documents were not filed before the court below.
24. The court has questioned the basis of the legal heir ship certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 25.6.2009 while impleading the petitioner and has held that it has to be decided separately in a separate proceeding. The court http://www.judis.nic.in 10 has concluded that the petitioner has suppressed several facts impleaded before he got himself as the legal heir/legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari .
25. The court has concluded that unless the status and the position as claimed by the petitioner is determined in a separate legal proceeding, it would not be proper and legal to get along with the application for passing final decree proceedings.
26. The learned counsel for the submits that the court below erred in assuming fraud played by the petitioner along with the former counsel engaged by Respondent-3-5[D3-5] for securing orders for impleading himself as the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and in securing an final decree on 21.11.2011 pursuant to his impleading as the legal heir/legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari In O.S.No 6147 of 2005.
27. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
1.Jai Adi Suguna vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and others, (2009) 8 SCC 521
ii) R.Manohari and two others vs. Arumuga Gounder, CRP.No.549 of 2004.
iii. MST.Deu and others vs. Laxmi Nrayan and others (1998) 8 SCC 701
iv) L.Debi Prasad (dead) by Lrs. Smt.Tribeni Devi and others, 1970 (1) SCC 677
28. The common thread of the defence accepted by the court in the applications filed by Respondent No. 1-4 (D1-4) while passing the impugned order was on account of the role played by the former counsel for respondents Nos.3 to 5 in giving 'no objection' for impleading and while passing of exparte final decree. It is stated that a complaint had been lodged against the said counsel before the Bar Council for having undertaken not only the assignment of drafting and facilitating the registration of the three above mentioned documents viz., Release Deed, Adoption deed of settlement but also for giving no objections for impleading of the petitioner.
29. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon the following decisions:-
I) Kishori Lal vs. Mst.Chaltibai, 1959 Supp(1) SC 698 :
AIR 1959 SC 504
ii) Md.Afta buddin Khan and others vs. Chandran Bilasini and another 1976 SCC online Ori 80
30. The learned counsel for the respondents 1to 4 (defendant http://www.judis.nic.in 12 Nos.1 – 4) has submitted that the impugned order passed by the lower court was correct and cannot be faulted.
31. It is submitted that but the former counsel for the respondent Nos.3-5 (defendant Nos.3-5) making endorsement without instructions, the question of impleading the petitioner would not have arisen. Further, it was highly unbecoming of the counsel appearing for the defendants 3-5 have undertaken the assignment of drafting the above three documents thereby acting contrary to the interest of the respondent Nos.3-4(Defendant Nos.3-4)
32. It is further submitted that the petitioner was neither the biological son nor the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and the Court has rightly intervened by allowing the application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 ( Defendant Nos.1 to 4)
33. It is also further submitted that after the death of the plaintiff' A.Thulasi Kumari and her husband viz., Adikesavan, the property would be devolved upon them and that they were surprised when they learned that the petitioner had taken steps to implead himself as legal representative by http://www.judis.nic.in 13 colluding the counsel engaged by the respondent Nos.3-5( defendant Nos.3-5) and thereby compromising their rights over the property to which they have legitimate rights.
34. I have considered the rival submissions. The entire edifice of the court below is that the petitioner has played of fraud and that the former counsel engaged by the respondent Nos.3 - 5 (Defendant Nos.3-5) played of fraud in allowing the petitioner to be impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari In I.A.No. 18700 of 2009 basded on an endorsement on behalf of the respondent Nos.3-5(Defendant Nos.3-5) stating that they had no objection to implead the petitioner is legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.
35. Having created a doubt in the mind of the court, rest of the orders passed have been allowed and thereby order passed by impleading, final decree and review petition have been set aside.
36. The court has declined to decide issue as to whether the petitioner was indeed the adopted son and the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari on the assumption that the petitioner http://www.judis.nic.in 14 played fraud and it has to be decided separately.
37. From the facts narrated above it is quite evident that petitioner did not make an attempt to implead himself as a legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari immediately after her death on 2.12.2008 along with R.Adikesavan.
38. It is also evident that even the late husband of the deceased plaintiff R.Adhikesavan who was conducting the case and interacting with the counsel also did not take steps to implead himself or the petitioner after the death of the plaintiff on 2.12.2008.
39. Within a period of seven months from the death of the plaintiff, her husband R.Adikesavan also died on 25.6.2009. During the interregnum three separate deeds came to be executed. Prior to the death of the original plaintiff, the fifth defendant namely Dhanapalan, who is the the brother of the deceased plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 executed a release deed in her favour. The said release deed was drafted by his counsel who incidentally appeared for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Defendant Nos.3 and 4). Thereafter, uncharitable remarks again the counsel engaged by them was http://www.judis.nic.in 15 unwarranted.
40. The deceased plaintiff became entitled to 2/6 share in the suit schedule properties during her life time. After, her death her legal representative are entitled to succeed as she died intestate. Admittedly, there is no doubt about the fact that late R.Adikesavan was the husband. Unfortunately, R.Adikesavan also died after executing a deed recording the alleged adoption of the petitioner on 3.9.1989 from his biological parents. On 16.6.2009, R.Adikesavan also executed a settlement deed and settled the property in favour of the petitioner. There is a presumption that the documents are genuine.
41. Though there is reference to the adoption deed in the impugned order it has not been shown as if having marked as a document. The fact that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have given no objection at the initial stage before passing of the preliminary decree on 2.4.2007 also cannot be ignored. It is only after the petitioner filed I.A.No. 1962 of 2012 to review the final decree, the respondent No. 1 and 2 became active and have raised objections to undo the following orders passed by the court on:-
" i) 17.11.2009 impleading the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff in I.A.No http://www.judis.nic.in 16 18700 of 2009,
ii) 21.11.2011 passing final decree I. A.No 15222 of 2007; and
iii). 13.2.2002 allowing review of the final decree dated 21.11.2011 vide I.A.No 1962 of 2012."
42. To lend credence to the theory of fraud put forward and propounded by the Respondent Nos . 1-2 (D-1-2) , Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (D3 and 4) appear to have been persuaded to file the I.A.Nos.8666 of 2012 to condone the delay of 15 days in filing to set aside the order in I.A.No.1962 of 2012 and I.A.No.9668 of 2012 to set aside the review order in I.A.No.18700 of 2009 to implead the petitioner.
43. From the overall consideration of facts it is evident that but for the averments in affidavits filed in support of filed I.A.Nos. 8666-67 of 2012 by Respondent No. 3 and 4 (D3-4), the averments in I.A.Nos. 8664-8665 of 2012 by Respondent Nos. 1-2 have no basis to question the impleading and the passing of the final decree on 21.11.2011. There is an overwhelming evidence on record to show that the petitioner is indeed a prima facie adopted son and therefore, the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari .
http://www.judis.nic.in 17
44. I am of the view that the lower court erred in holding that the petitioner the status of the petitioner a legal heir/legal representative whether he was entitled to succeed to the assets of the deceased plaintiff has to be decided in a separate proceeding. The view taken is contrary to the law on the subject as well. In Mst. Deu and others Vs Lakshmi Narayanan and others (1998) 8 SCC 701 after referring to section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the court held that whenever there is a document registered and is produced before the court purporting to record an adoption made, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved and it is not open for the opposite party to collaterally challenge the said registered date of petition. It is open for them to disprove the deed of adoption but for that they should take independent proceedings. There is nothing on record to show that they have taken steps to declare the status of the petitioner as the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff and her husband as illegal.
45. That apart, as per the definition of “legal representative” in section 2 (11) of CPC, “legal representative” is a person who in law represents http://www.judis.nic.in 18 the estate of the deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased person and where a party sues or is issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the debt of the party sues showing or sued The definition is wide and inclusive. The fact that the petitioner has been given possession to the estate of the deceased as per he settlement deed cannot be ignored.
46. In this case, admittedly there are overwhelming evidence on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of the immovable property which are subject matter of the above suit at the time of the death of the deceased plaintiff namely A.Thulasi Kumari and her husband, R.Adikesavan who died subsequently.
47. Respondent Nos.1-2 (D1-2) had objected to the partition up to the stage of passing of the preliminary decree. However, after preliminary decree was passed on 2.4.2007, they decided to remain absent all through and accepted the consequence flowing therefrom. They did not file any appeal before the appellate court challenging the preliminary decree.
48. The fact that the 5 th defendant has also executed a release deed dated 28.2.2008 and the written statement filed by Respondent No. 3 and 4 http://www.judis.nic.in 19 (D3-4) was adopted by him shows that only after the death of the original plaintiff and her husband, R.Adikesavan respondent Nos. 1-4 (D1-4) have decided to isolate the petitioner as he is not the biological son of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi and her late. husband. R.Adikesavan.
49. The court should have decided the issue as to whether the petitioner was indeed the adopted son of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari R.Adikesavan instead of holding that same has to be decided in a separate proceeding. Even as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Jaladi Suguna vs. Satya Central Trust (2008) 8 SCC 521 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that the court cannot postpone the decision as to who is the legal representative of the deceased even though Order 22 Rule 5 does not specifically provide that determination of the legal representative should proceed the hearing of the appeal on merit. Though the decision was rendered in the context of Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C at the appellate stage , ratio thereon is relevant. The Court further held as follows :-
"15. Filing an application to bring the legal representatives on record, does not amount to bringing the legal representatives on record. When an LR application is filed, the court should consider it and http://www.judis.nic.in 20 decide whether the persons named therein as the legal representatives, should be brought on record to represent the estate of the deceased. Until such decision by the court, the persons claiming to be the legal representatives have no right to represent the estate of the deceased, nor prosecute or defend the case. If there is a dispute as to who is the legal representative, a decision should be rendered on such dispute. Only when the question of legal representative is determined by the court and such legal representative is brought on record, can it be said that the estate of the deceased is represented. The determination as to who is the legal representative under Order 22 Rule 5 will of course be for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of that case. Such determination for such limited purpose will not confer on the person held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the suit, vis-à-vis other rival claimants to the estate of the deceased.
16. The provisions of Rules 4 and 5 of Order 22 are mandatory. When a respondent in an appeal dies, the court cannot simply say that it will hear all rival claimants to the estate of the deceased respondent and proceed to dispose of the appeal. Nor can it implead all persons claiming to be legal representatives, as parties to the appeal without deciding who will represent the estate of the deceased, and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The court cannot also postpone the decision as to who is the legal representative of the deceased respondent, for being decided along with the appeal on merits. The Code clearly provides that where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased respondent, such question shall be determined by the court. The Code also provides that where one of the respondents dies and the right to sue does not survive against the http://www.judis.nic.in 21 surviving respondents, the court shall, on an application made in that behalf, cause the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to be made parties, and then proceed with the case. Though Rule 5 does not specifically provide that determination of legal representative should precede the hearing of the appeal on merits, Rule 4 read with Rule 11 makes it clear that the appeal can be heard only after the legal representatives are brought on record. "
50. The Honourable Supreme Court in Debi Prasad vs. Smt.Tribeni Devi and others 1970 (1) SCC 677 recognized the reasoning of the Privy Council in 14 Moors Indian Appeals P67 wherein it was held that although a person who pleads that he was adopted is bound to prove his title as adopted son, as fact yet from the long period during which he has been received as an adopted son, every allowance for the absence of evidence to prove such fact was to be favourably entertained and that the case was analogous to that in which the legitimacy of a person in possession had been acquiesced in for a considerable time.
51. Thus, while it is open for the petitioner to prove his adoption by way of circumstantial evidence and by way of adoption deed there is a legal presumption that there was adoption if such document is produced. It is open for the respondents to challenge the same in any independent proceeding. Even as per the decision of this court rendered in C.R.P.No.549 of http://www.judis.nic.in 22 2004 on 16.2.2008 in R. Manohari, , M Sasikala and K Renuka Vs Arumuga Gownder, the court remanded the case back to the lower court since there was no proper determination under Order XXII Rule5 of CPC.
52. Therefore, I am of the view that to meet the ends of justice it would be fair to remit the case back to the XVII Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai to determine the question as to whether the petitioner is indeed the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and that of her husband R.Adikesavan.
53. The petitioner shall therefore file copies of the documents referred to in this order and produce them before the XVII Asst.City Civil Court Chennai along with an affidavit to substantiate his claim that he is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari and that of her husband late.R.Adikesavan. Such exercise shall be carried out latest by the petitioner with one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
54. Thereafter, the learned judge presiding over the XVII Asst. City Civil Court Chennai shall determine the status of the petitioner as to whether http://www.judis.nic.in 23 he is entitled represent the estate of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari In O.S.No. 6147 of 2005 as her legal representative. Respondents are entitled to raise their respective objection and defences that are available to them under law.
55. The learned Judge shall decide the issue independently uninfluenced by the observations made in this order on merits while at the same time keep the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and cited on the subject.
56. The learned judge presiding over the XVII Asst. City Civil Court Chennai shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from date of communication of this order.
57. In case, the petitioner is indeed held to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff A.Thulasi Kumari in O.S.No.6147 of 2005 by the XVII Asst. City Civil Court Chennai, subsequent orders passed by the said court upto the stage allowing the review application in I.A.1962 of 2012 shall stand restored together with consequential benefits. http://www.judis.nic.in 24
58. In such an eventuality all the applications filed by the respondent Nos 1-4 before the XVII Asst. City Civil Court Chennai subsequently shall stand set aside sine die.
59. The impugned orders passed by the XVII Asst. City Civil Court Chennai are hereby set aside and the respective Civil Revision Petitions allowed with the above observations. No cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.04.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking : Non Speaking order kkd To XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 25 http://www.judis.nic.in 26 C.SARAVANAN,J.
kkd CRP.NPD.Nos.1350 to 1352 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 and C.M.P.No.2988 of 2018 30.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in