Madras High Court
Abraham vs Ganesan Aasari (Died) ... 1St on 29 July, 2010
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order
30.11.2018 05.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2009
and
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1708 of 2008
1.Abraham
2.Joji ... Petitioners / R3 & R4 / D3 & D4
in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008 and
Petitioners / Petitioners / D3 & D4
in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1708 of 2008
-vs-
1.Ganesan Aasari (Died) ... 1st Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff in both
C.R.Ps.
2.V.Kumaram Nair ... 2nd Respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707
of 2008
3.S.Santhakumari
4.G.S.Rathiskumar
5.G.S.Rekha
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
6.G.S.Reshma ... R3 to R6 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008 &
R2 to R5 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1708 of 2008
[R2 impleaded vide order dated
29.07.2010, made in M.P.(MD) No.
2 of 2009 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.
1707 of 2008 and R3 to R6
brought on record as L.Rs. of
deceased R1 vide Court order
dated 16.06.2016 made in C.M.P.
(MD) Nos.5111 & 5112 of 2016 in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) Nos.1707 &
1708 of 2008 respectively]
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008): Civil revision petition is
filed, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair
and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.24 of 2007 in O.S.No.140 of 1993, dated
06.08.2008, on the file of the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil.
PRAYER (in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1708 of 2008): Civil revision petition is
filed, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair
and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.25 of 2007 in O.S.No.140 of 1993, dated
06.08.2008, on the file of the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
(in both C.R.Ps.) for Mr.D.Nallathami
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
(in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008)
For R3 to R6 : Mr.S.Subbiah, Senior Counsel
(in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008) for Mrs.J.Anandhavalli
For R2 to R5
(in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1708 of 2008)
COMMON ORDER
The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008 is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 06.08.2008, passed in I.A.No.24 of 2007 in O.S.No.140 of 1993, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.
2. The civil revision petition in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1708 of 2008 is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 06.08.2008, passed in I.A.No.25 of 2007 in O.S.No.140 of 1993, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil.
3. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that the deceased first respondent herein, namely, Ganesan Aasari, had laid the suit against the revision petitioners and two others for the relief of specific performance. The abovesaid suit, after contest, is found to have been disposed of in favour of the http://www.judis.nic.in 4 deceased first respondent herein, by Judgment and Decree, dated 09.07.2004, whereby, the deceased first respondent herein had been directed to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- in the Court, on or before 09.08.2004 and a further direction had been given that the defendants, namely, the revision petitioners and two others, on receipt of the abvovesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- they should execute the sale deed in favour of the deceased first respondent herein in respect of the suit properties on or before 09.09.2004 and in the event of their failure, a direction had also been given to the deceased first respondent to approach the Court for the execution of the sale deed and accordingly, disposed of the suit in favour of the deceased first respondent herein.
4. It is seen that the deceased first respondent had not deposited the amount within the time as directed by the Court below by Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 1993, dated 09.07.2004. Further, it is seen that seeking enlargement of time to deposit the abovesaid amount, the deceased first respondent had moved I.A.No.24 of 2007, under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and with reference to the aboveaid application, according to the deceased first respondent, as against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.140 of 1993, dated 09.07.2004, no appeal had been preferred by the revision petitioners and two others. Further, http://www.judis.nic.in 5 according to him, after the decree had been passed in the abovesaid suit, he had given the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to his Lawyer, who conducted the case, to be deposited in the Court within the time fixed for deposit and he was under the bona fide belief that his Lawyer had deposited the amount in the Court and when he contacted his Lawyer, he was informed that the abovesaid sum had been deposited in the Court in time and he had been asked to wait for two more months so as to see whether the revision petitioners and two others are executing the sale deed in terms of the Decree or not and inasmuch as the revision petitioners and two others had not come forward to execute the sale deed, even after the time fixed in the Decree had expired, it is his case that he had instructed his Lawyer to file the execution petition, however, his Lawyer had delayed the matter and accordingly, it is his case that when he raised a doubt whether the abovesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- had been deposited in the Court or not, his Lawyer gave him the counterfoil of the challan issued by the Court, dated 17.08.2004, which has been produced along with the application and accordingly, it is his case that on the basis of the counterfoil of the challan, he was convinced and also according to him, he was informed by his Lawyer that the execution petition had been filed and the same is pending and thereafter, when he contacted his Lawyer to know the progress of the execution petition, no proper reply came from his Lawyer and after waiting for a considerable time, as no fruitful result came out, it is his http://www.judis.nic.in 6 case that he made further enquiries and learnt to his astonishment that no execution petition had been filed and he also came to understand to his shock and surprise that the sum given by him to his Lawyer had also not been deposited in the Court and thereby, he had been betrayed and accordingly, it is his case that inasmuch as he is willing to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- as directed by the Court, seeking extension of time with reference to the same, according to the deceased first respondent, he has been necessitated to lay the abovesaid application.
5. The abovesaid case of the deceased first respondent had been stiffly resisted by the revision petitioners and according to them, the reasons adduced by the deceased first respondent that the balance sale consideration had been entrusted by him to his Lawyer and on account of the failure on the part of his Lawyer in depositing the same in the Court, he had been unable to proceed further and therefore, he had been necessitated to lay the abovesaid application seeking enlargement of the time, cannot be believed and the deceased first respondent had not given particulars as to on what date he had entrusted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to his Lawyer and also not given any particulars as to what action he had thereafter taken against his Lawyer as regards the misappropriation of the amount and therefore, the abovesaid reasons projected by the deceased first respondent cannot be easily accepted http://www.judis.nic.in 7 and the same requires to be proved and further according to them, the application seeking extension of time has been preferred by the deceased first respondent only after the revision petitioners had moved I.A.No.25 of 2007 seeking for rescission of the contract entered into between the parties and knowing well that there are latches on his part, the deceased first respondent had invented the false reasons and when in a suit for specific performance of contract of sale, the plaintiff, namely, deceased first respondent herein should always be ready and willing to perform his part and the delay of nearly three years to deposit the balance sale consideration itself would go to show that the deceased first respondent is not ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the application preferred by him being bereft of particulars and as the deceased first respondent has not conducted himself in a reasonable manner under the contract of sale, his application deserves to be rejected.
6. The revision petitioners had moved I.A.No.25 of 2007 praying for the order of rescission of the contract of sale and the restoration of the possession of the suit properties to them and accordingly, it is their case that the deceased first respondent had not deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within the time as stipulated by the Decree passed in the suit and thereby, he had failed to comply with the terms of the Decree and also no notice has been http://www.judis.nic.in 8 received by the revision petitioners as regards the deposit of the amount as per the terms of the Decree and accordingly, contended that the contract entered into between the parties has to be rescinded altogether and the deceased first respondent should be directed to restore the possession of the suit properties to them and thereby, sought for the necessary orders in their favour.
7. The abovesaid application of the revision petitioners had been contested by the deceased first respondent contending that the application is lacking in bona fides and that inasmuch as the amount entrusted by him to his Lawyer has not been deposited in the Court in time, accordingly, he could not deposit the amount as per the terms of the decree and further according to him, he was under the bona fide belief that his Lawyer had deposited the amount in the Court and also as per his instructions, his Lawyer had preferred the necessary execution petition and when he raised a doubt whether the abovesaid sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited in the Court or not, his Lawyer gave him a counterfoil of the challan of the Court, dated 17.08.2004 and even thereafter, after a long lapse of time, as no fruitful result yielded, on enquiry, he came to know that no execution petition had been filed and the abovesaid sum had also not been deposited by his Lawyer in the Court and accordingly, he had been necessitated to move the application for http://www.judis.nic.in 9 enlargement of the time and in such view of the matter, the present application preferred by the revision petitioners for the rescission of the contract is nothing but to harass him and the Decree does not provide any default clause on his failure to deposit the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within the time stipulated by the Court and therefore, Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 will not apply and the Decree passed in the suit is only a preliminary Decree and therefore, the Court has got powers to enlarge the time for depositing the balance sale consideration and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the abovesaid application.
8. Both the applications were taken up for hearing together by the Court below and it is seen that in support of his case, the deceased first respondent had examined himself as P.W.1 and also marked Exs.P1 and P2. On the side of the revision petitioners, no oral and documentary evidence has been adduced.
9. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary and the submissions made, was pleased to accept the application preferred by the deceased first respondent and dismiss the application preferred by the revision petitioners. Challenging the same, the revision petitioners have preferred the abovesaid civil revision petitions. http://www.judis.nic.in 10
10. While the abovesaid civil revision petitions have been pending, it is seen that the Advocate, who had appeared for the deceased first respondent, namely, V.Kumaran Nair had moved a miscellaneous petition in this Court in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2009 seeking to get himself impleaded as a respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008 and with reference to the abovesaid case, according to V.Kumaran Nair, the deceased first respondent had putforth a false case as if he had entrusted the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- to him to be deposited in the Court and that he had committed a fraud on him by giving a counterfoil of the challan and contended that the Court below, on holding that the reason given by the deceased first respondent is probable and acceptable and thereby, had cast a serious stigma on his name and reputation, it is also stated that he had also moved the District Court, Kanyakumari, by filing C.M.A.S.R.No.4042 of 2008, for expunging the abovesaid remarks passed against him and on coming to know the filing of the abovesaid civil revision petitions by the revision petitioners, seeking intervention in the abovesaid revision proceedings for the relief of expunging the adverse remarks that have been passed against him and accordingly, contended that before passing any adverse remarks against any person, who is not a party to the proceedings, the Court is obliged to put him on notice and hear him and cannot make offensive observations against a person behind his http://www.judis.nic.in 11 back and he had also rendered the professional service to the deceased first respondent for several years without any complaint and had also appeared for him in a number of cases and when the deceased first respondent had thrown false and baseless allegations against him and when it is not difficult to obtain the counterfoil of the challan, the Court below having cast a cloud on his character and integrity based on the baseless allegations of the deceased first respondent and according to him, he had not received any sum from the deceased first respondent for depositing in the Court and therefore, the reasons given by the deceased first respondent casting slander on his character and reputation, necessitated him to intervene in the revision petition to putforth his case, accordingly, prayed for his impleadment in the revision proceedings.
11. The abovesaid miscellaneous petition appears to be contested by the deceased first respondent herein by putting forth his case that no adverse remark has been putforth against the Advocate and hence, the miscellaneous petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. This Court, by an order dated 29.07.2010, on noting that the Court below having accepted the reasons given by the deceased first respondent for enlargement of the time to deposit the balance sale consideration on the http://www.judis.nic.in 12 ground that he has entrusted the balance sale consideration to his Advocate, however, his Advocate had failed to deposit the same in the Court and therefore, he was unable to proceed further and by way of the same, the Court had accepted the case of the deceased first respondent, determined the case against the impleading party, namely, V.Kumaran Nair and held that that his impleadment as a respondent in the revision petition is very much essential with reference to the observations made against him in the impunged order passed by the Court below and accordingly, allowed the impleadment petition. Accordingly, it is seen that V.Kumaran Nair has been impleaded as the second respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008.
13. It is contended by the revision petitioner's counsel that the Court below had failed to take into account that the deceased first respondent had not established his case in blaming his Advocate for not depositing the amount in the Court and further according to him, when the very factum of the entrustment of the amount by the deceased first respondent to his Advocate has not been established by him and when with reference to the same, the case projected by the deceased first respondent is found to be bereft of material particulars and furthermore, according to him, the counterfoil of the challan, by itself, would not lead to the conclusion that the deceased first respondent has always been ready and willing to perform his contract in http://www.judis.nic.in 13 paying the balance consideration as directed by the Court while disposing of the suit and further, according to him, there is no material placed on record worth acceptance on the part of the deceased first respondent that the counterfoil of the challan had been really entrusted to him by his Advocate and when the deceased first respondent had not established that he had taken action against his Advocate as per law on his failure to deposit the alleged amount said to have been entrusted by the deceased first respondent in the matter, lastly, concluded his argument by contending that when the said fact has been now repudiated by the concerned Advocate himself in the revision proceedings by getting himself impleaded as a party respondent, in toto, according to him, the impugned orders of the Court below granting enlargement of the time to the deceased first respondent for depositing the balance sale consideration and thereby, rejecting the revision petitioners' application for rescission of the contract are liable to be set aside and prays for suitable orders. Further, he would also contend that the Court below had failed to take into consideration that the petition laid by the revision petitioners is earlier in point of time and only thereafter, the deceased first respondent had chosen to lay the application for enlargement of the time and the abovesaid factor had also not been taken into consideration by the Court below in the right perspective and thereby, also erred in passing the impugned order.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent contended that the Court below had assessed the materials placed on record in the right perspective by accepting the evidence of the deceased first respondent examined as P.W.1 and also placed reliance on the counterfoil of the challan, as according to him, the same had misled the deceased first respondent in reposing confidence on his Advocate and according to him, only thereafter, as no progress had been made in the matter in the execution of the sale deed and on further verification, when the deceased first respondent had come to know that his Advocate had not deposited the amount in the Court nor filed the execution petition etc., accordingly, he had been constrained to lay the application for enlargement of the time and accordingly, when the Court has the power to enlarge the time, particularly, the passing of the decree in the suit for specific performance is only in the nature of preliminary decree and therefore, according to him, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Furthermore, he would also contend that considering the stand of the Advocate, who got himself impleaded in the civil revision petition, when he had been watching the proceedings from the inception, as a dutiful Lawyer, it is his duty to project his case before the Court below by getting himself impleaded in the proceedings before the Court below and on the other hand, his attitude of watching the proceedings of the Court below, without taking part in the same http://www.judis.nic.in 15 and only thereafter, having chosen to get himself impleaded in the revision proceedings, according to him, when the case of the deceased first respondent had not been controverted by the Advocate, as now projected, the Court below is wholly justified in accepting the case of the deceased first respondent and on that basis also, it is his contention that the failure of the Advocate concerned in adducing evidence in support of his contentions now projected as well as repudiating the case of the deceased first respondent before the Court below would be fatal to his case and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the civil revision petitions.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the Advocate, who got himself impleaded in the revision proceedings, contended that the deceased first respondent had levelled serious allegations against him, without placing any proof to buttress the same and when there is no material pointing to the fact that the deceased first respondent had given the amount to the Advocate for depositing the same in the Court and when there is no material to evidence that the Advocate concerned had entrusted the counterfoil of the challan to the deceased first respondent and when the counterfoil of the challan could be easily secured one way or the other, according to him, the Court below should not have accepted the case of the deceased first respondent on the face value sans any proof pointing to the same and further, according to him, the Court http://www.judis.nic.in 16 below by accepting the case of the deceased first respondent had tarnished the reputation of the Advocate concerned, without providing an opportunity to the Advocate concerned to putforth his stand on the allegations made by the deceased first respondent and therefore, according to him, the determination of the Court below upholding the allegations putforth by the deceased first respondent against the Advocate concerned should be expunged and thereby, the case of the deceased first respondent should be rejected.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent contended at the inception that the civil revision petition laid by the revision petitioners impugning the dismissal of their application preferred under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not maintainable and according to him, the said order is only an appealable order and on that ground alone, according to him, the civil revision revision petition is liable to be rejected and in this connection, he has placed reliance upon the decision in N.V.S.M.Anandvale vs. K.T.Santhanakrishna, reported in (2010) 7 MLJ 612.
17. Inasmuch as I deem it fit to remit the matter back to the Court below for deciding the issues involved between the parties in the matter afresh, the preliminary objection putforth by the learned Senior Counsel as http://www.judis.nic.in 17 regards the maintainability of the civil revision petition, in my considered opinion, need not be dealt with.
18. Admittedly, the deceased first respondent had not deposited the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the Court. Very belatedly, nearly three years after the stipulated time, he had chosen to come forward with the application for enlargement of the time to deposit the balance sale consideration. It is also noted that the deceased first respondent had laid the application for enlargement of the time, only after the application preferred by the revision petitioner for the rescission of the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Be that as it may, now, according to the deceased first respondent, the reasons projected by him for not depositing the amount within the time directed by the Court is that though he had handed over the amount to his Advocate to be deposited in the Court, his Advocate had failed to deposit the same in the Court and on the other hand, according to him, misled him as if the amount had been deposited and also directed him to wait for sometime to ascertain whether the revision petitioners come forward to execute the sale deed and also had assured him that he had filed the execution petition in connection with the same and also according to the deceased first respondent, on the entrustment of the counterfoil of the challan by the Advocate, he had also been further mislead and only thereafter, as no http://www.judis.nic.in 18 progress had been made in the matter, on further verification coming to know that no amount has been deposited nor execution petition had been filed, according to him, he had been necessitated to lay the application for enlargement of the time to deposit the amount. Thus, it is found that the deceased first respondent had thrown the blame on his Advocate for not depositing the balance sale consideration in time.
19. The abovesaid case of the deceased first respondent had been seriously challenged by the revision petitioners and it is also noted that the deceased first respondent had been cross-examined by the revision petitioners with reference to the same.
20. As putforth by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the deceased first respondent had not projected clearly as to when he had entrusted the amount to his Advocate and as to what action had been initiated against his Advocate, on coming to know that his Advocate had failed to deposit the amount entrusted by him. When there is no material projected by the deceased first respondent as to what further action he had initiated against the Advocate concerned, according to him, the Court below thereby, should not have accepted the deceased first respondent's case and on the other hand, contended that the Court below had shifted the burden on the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 revision petitioners for their failure to examine the Advocate concerned, which is not their duty and thereby putforth the argument that the Court below had erred in granting time for depositing the amount and dismissing the application for the rescission of the contract.
21. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Court below having accepted that the deceased first respondent had not placed any material evidencing that he had initiated action against the Advocate concerned for his failure to deposit the amount in the Court alleged to have been entrusted by him to the Advocate, however, still proceeded to accept the case of the deceased first respondent, based on the counterfoil of the challan marked as Ex.P2. However, as rightly putforth, even with reference to the same, there is no material worth acceptance pointing to the fact that Ex.P2 counterfoil of the challan had been entrusted by the Advocate concerned to the deceased first respondent. As to what further emanated based on the counterfoil of the challan projected by the deceased first respondent, whether the amount had been deposited or not, when there is no clear case projected by the deceased first respondent, even then it is found that the Court below had proceeded to accept the case of the deceased, without reliable material pointing to the same and by accepting the case of the deceased first respondent, thereby upheld the allegations levelled by the deceased first http://www.judis.nic.in 20 respondent against the Advocate concerned and thereby, it is found that as putforth by the Advocate concerned, when by way of the same, the Court below had cast certain aspersions on the part of the Advocate concerned impliedly, it is seen that the Court should have been more cautious while determining the issues involved in the matter by providing necessary opportunity to the Advocate concerned to putforth his case.
22. Equally, it is noted that when the Advocate concerned is found to have been watching the proceedings from the inception and also pleaded that he had preferred the appeal before the District Court for expunging the remarks passed against him and thereafter, having taken steps to get himself impleaded as a party respondent in the revision proceedings, on coming to know the filing of the abovesaid civil revision petitions by the revision petitioners, as rightly putforth by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent, the Advocate concerned also owe a duty to putforth his stand concerning the case projected by the deceased first respondent and he having kept quiet, without projecting his stand and being a silent spectator before the Court below, without either accepting or repudiating the case of the deceased first respondent and only on passing of the impugned order, having chosen to get himself impleaded in the civil revision petition preferred, in connection with the same, it is seen that the http://www.judis.nic.in 21 Advocate concerned has also failed to discharge his duty placed on him, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
23. The Court below is also found to have erroneously shifted the burden upon the revision petitioners for accepting the case of the deceased first respondent and rejecting the case of the revision petitioners in their failure to examine the Advocate concerned. When it is the duty of the deceased first respondent to examine the Advocate concerned in support of his case or the Advocate concerned should have suo motu endeavoured to project his case as he is aware of the Court proceedings as above discussed, it is seen that the Court below had erroneously shifted the burden upon the revision petitioners. Furthermore, the Court below, without assessing as to the effect of the production of the counterfoil of the challan marked as Ex.P2 and what had emanated thereby, having not gone into the abovesaid aspect of the matter, on that score alone, seems to have blindly accepted the case of the deceased first respondent.
24. In the light of the abovesaid position and when the deceased first respondent had thrown the blame on the Advocate concerned for not depositing the amount and at present in the civil revision petition, the Advocate concerned had repudiated the case of the deceased first respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 22 and when the counterfoil of the challan / Ex.P2 itself is being under challenge as to whether the same had been entrusted by the Advocate to the deceased first respondent, as the same had been challenged by the Advocate concerned and when by way of the impugned order, the Court had impliedly admitted the allegations putforth against the Advocate by the deceased first respondent, in all, by way of the same, the Court had determined the issues involved in the matter, without providing any opportunity to the Advocate concerned and when as of now, the Advocate concerned had chosen to implead himself and also projected his case, in my considered opinion, the matter should be remitted back to the Court below for providing an opportunity to all the parties involved in the matter to adduce further evidence as regards the issues involved in the matter, particularly, to provide an opportunity to the Advocate concerned to putforth his case, so that the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent and for the matter, the revision petitioners also would have an opportunity to cross-examine him with reference to the same, in all, when the approach of the Court below is seen as not assessing the materials placed on record in the proper respective and considering the developments, which had taken place in the matter as above discussed, particularly, the Advocate concerned now coming to the picture, in the fitness of things, the matter requires to be remitted back to the Court below for the consideration of the issues involved in the matter afresh.
http://www.judis.nic.in 23
25. Considering the order of remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for determining the issues afresh as above discussed, the decisions relied upon by the counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in V.S.Palanichamy Chettiar Firm vs. C.Alagappan and another, reported in 2010–2–L.W.1027; Dhavamani vs. Radhakrishnan Chettiar, reported in 2004-1-L.W.760; Laxman Tatyaba Kankate and another, reported in Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 717; M.Karunanidhi vs. H.V.Handa and others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 558 and the decisions relied upon the by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent in Rajinder Kumar vs. Kuldeep Singh, reported in 2014 (2) CTC 93; Nashik Municipal Corporation vs. R.M.Bhandari and others, reported in 2016 (2) CTC 338, in my considered opinion, are not needed to be dealt with at this stage of the matter as the parties had been directed to adduce further materials with respect to their respective contentions putforth in the case.
26. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned orders, dated 06.08.2008, passed in I.A.Nos.24 and 25 of 2007 in O.S.No.140 of 1993, are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below with a direction to the Court below to implead the Advocate concerned as a party respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 24 in the application preferred by the deceased first respondent for enlargement of the time and thereafter, provide further opportunity to both the parties, including the Advocate concerned, to adduce further evidence in the matter with reference to their respective cases, as per law and thereby, determine the case on the basis of the materials placed on record by the respective parties in accordance with law.
27. With the above directions, the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
05.12.2018
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
krk
To:
The I Additional Sub Judge,
Nagercoil.
http://www.judis.nic.in
25
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
krk
COMMON ORDER
IN
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1707 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2009
and
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1708 of 2008
05.12.2018
http://www.judis.nic.in