Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A. Murugesan vs M.Raju on 1 December, 2020

                                                                            CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              Order Dated : 01.12.2020

                                                       CORAM :

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                              CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019
                                                         and
                                               C.M.P.No. 2529 of 2019

                    A. Murugesan                                           ... Petitioner/plaintiff

                                                        Versus
                    1.M.Raju
                      Pappathi (Died)
                    2.Sathishkumar
                    3.Menaka                                       ... Respondents/defendants

                    Prayer:
                              Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

                    India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 01.09.2018 made

                    in I.A.No. 412 of 2015 in I.A.No.510 of 2009 in O.S.No. 228 of 2004

                    passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Paramathy.



                                    For petitioner    : Mr.T.L. Thirumalaisamy
                                    For Respondents : Mr.R. Marudhachalamurthy
                                                       -----

                                                             ORDER

1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the original suit in O.S. No.228 of 2004 therein.

1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019

2. The Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 228 of 2004 for declaration of title of the suit properties and consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from in anyway disturbing or interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff has been declared as an Insolvent as per order in I.P.No. 48 of 2000 dated 05.10.2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. Thereafter, he has filed an application in I.A.No.510 of 2009 in O.S.No.228 of 2004 to implead the Official Receiver, Salem (Namakkal), as the second plaintiff in the above suit and the same was pending for further proceedings. On 27.10.2014, the said application in I.A.No.510 of 2009 (Impleading the Official Receiver Petition) was dismissed for default by the Court below for not taking further steps. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.412 of 2015 under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order of dismissal dated 27.10.2014 passed by the District Munsif Court, Paramathy, to restore the said I.A.No.510 of 2009. Since there was a delay the petitioner has filed IA.No.332 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 120 days in filing the petition to restore the application in I.A.No.510 of 2009 (filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC) in the above suit. Thereafter, the aforesaid 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019 IA.No.412 of 2015 was numbered and the said application was dismissed by the District Munsif Court, Paramathy, dated 01.09.2018 on the ground that no condonation petition was filed in filing an application seeking to restore the application. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present revision before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.T.L. Thirumalaisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R. Marudhachalamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

4. From the typed set of papers and also from the lower court records, it is seen that the petitioner/plaintiff had already filed in I.A.No.338 of 2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the same was allowed on 29.04.2015. It appears that the learned District Munsif, Paramathy, has not gone through the court records properly before pronouncing the order and hence, the reason assigned in the impugned order is not acceptable. There is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed since there was already condonation petition filed and the same was allowed, the reason was assigned by the learned District Munsif, 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019 Paramathy, to dismiss the I.A.No.412 of 2015 is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.412 of 2015, dated 01.09.2018, is hereby set aside, and the interlocutory application in I.A.No. 510 of 2009 is directed to be restored on file.

5. Registry is directed to send the copy of the order at the earliest possible and the learned District Munsif, Paramathy, is required to deal with the suit and to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also Registry is directed to call for the explanation from the learned District Munsif, Paramathy, with regard to facts in the aforesaid order.

01.12.2020 Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking/Non-Speaking order msm To The Dstrict Munsif Court, Paramathy.

4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J., msm CRP.(PD).No. 357 of 2019 and C.M.P.No. 2529 of 2019 01.12.2020 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/