Madras High Court
S.Kanthimathiammal vs Nagammal on 25 September, 2015
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.09.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
Civil Revision Petition (MD).No.1990 of 2015
to Civil Revision Petition (MD).No.1993 of 2015 &
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015
1.S.Kanthimathiammal
2.S.Chokalingam
3.S.Poornalingam
4.S.Balasubramaniam
5.S.Thangam
6.Mahalakshmi
7.S.Vinayagam
8.S.Muthulakshmi . . Petitioners in all the petitions
versus
1.Nagammal
2.L.Essakkiappan
L.Essakimuthu (died)
3.Essakkiraj
4.Selvaraj
5.Ranjitham
6.E.Selvi
7.E.Nageswari
8.E.Pon Iyyappan . . Respondents in all the petitions
Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to hear and dispose of the applications in I.A.No.130
of 2015 in I.A.No.167 of 2013, I.A.No.132 of 2015, I.A.No.133 of 2015 and
I.A.No.216 of 2013 respectively in A.S.No.81 of 1994 on the file of the
Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, within a stipulated time.
For Petitioners :Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram
For Respondent :
:COMMON ORDER
The respondents in the first appeal A.S.No.81 of 1994 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli have filed the above civil revision petitions to direct the lower appellate Court to hear and dispose of the applications in I.A.No.130 of 2015 in I.A.No.167 of 2013, I.A.No.132 of 2015, I.A.No.133 of 2015 and I.A.No.216 of 2013 filed in A.S.No.81 of 1994, within a stipulated time.
2. The revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.239 of 1985, on the file of District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was also confirmed by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.81 of 1994. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants preferred a second appeal S.A.No.1752 of 1997 before this Court and this Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 remanded the matter back to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration on a particular point.
3. After remand, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.130 of 2015 in I.A.No.167 of 2013 to receive objections filed by them to the Advocate Commissioner's report and decide the application afresh. The petitioners also filed an application in I.A.No.131 of 2015 to recall PW1 and I.A.No.133 of 2015 to recall DW1. The respondents/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.216 of 2013 to receive documents under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.
4. Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the lower appellate Court instead of taking up the applications filed by the petitioners and disposing of the same, prior to the disposal of the first appeal, had posted all the applications filed by the petitioners along with the first appeal. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the applications filed by the petitioners have to be decided, prior to the disposal of the first appeal. I also agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. In these circumstances, I am inclined to direct the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, to dispose of the applications in I.A.No.130 of 2015 in I.A.No.167 of 2013, I.A.No.132 of 2015 and I.A.No.133 of 2015, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as the application filed by the respondents in I.A.No.216 of 2013 is concerned, the same can be taken up along with the appeal and can be disposed of along with the appeal. Accordingly, I direct the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, to dispose of the applications I.A.No.130 of 2015 in I.A.No.167 of 2013, I.A.No.132 of 2015 and I.A.No.133 of 2015, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to dispose of the appeal A.S.No.81 of 1994, within 8 weeks thereafter. With these observations, the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Principal Sub Judge.
Tirunelveli..