Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4812
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
Thangamani & Others
Versus
Rajakili & Another
C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 2802, 2803 and 2804 of 2009
Decided On :11-03-2010
For the Petitioners:S. Sounthar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance
The main legal point established in the judgment is that sufficient cause must be shown for filing interlocutory applications at a belated stage, and the Court must provide sufficient reasons for allowing such applications.
Headnote:
Interlocutory Applications - Suit for Permanent Injunction - Court allowed applications to reopen the matter, recall witness, and mark documents - Petitioners filed Civil Revision Petitions - Court found sufficient cause to set aside the order and directed trial Court to hear and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with law
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners, seeking to restrain them from interfering with the respondents' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents also filed interlocutory applications to reopen the matter, recall a witness, and mark certain documents. The trial Court allowed the applications despite objections raised by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause to set aside the order allowing the interlocutory applications. It noted that the respondents had not shown sufficient cause for filing the applications at a belated stage after the trial had commenced, and the trial Court had not provided sufficient reasons for allowing the applications. As a result, the civil revision petitions were allowed, and the trial Court was directed to hear and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with the law within three months.
Issues: The issues involved the trial Court's decision to allow the interlocutory applications filed by the respondents, the objections raised by the petitioners, and whether sufficient cause was shown for setting aside the order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the respondents had not shown sufficient cause for filing the interlocutory applications at a belated stage and that the trial Court had not provided sufficient reasons for allowing the applications. It held that the petitioners had shown sufficient cause to set aside the order and directed the trial Court to hear and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The civil revision petitions were allowed, and the trial Court was directed to hear and dispose of the suit on merits and in accordance with the law within three months.
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the fair and final order, dated 13.7.2009, made in I.A.Nos.132, 133 and 134 of 2009, in O.S.No.362 of 2004, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.
2. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petitions are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.362 of 2004. The respondents herein had filed the said suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners, their men and agents from, in any manner, interfering with the respondents peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, had also filed three interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.132 to 134 of 2009, to reopen the matter, to recall P.W.1 and to mark certain documents. The trial Court had allowed the applications, in spite of the serious objections raised by the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the trial Court had failed to see that the respondent had not given any acceptable reason for reopening the matter, to recall P.W.1 and for the production of the documents, even though the said requests had been made, at a belated stage. It had also been stated that the Court below had failed to note that the applications had been filed by the respondent with the mala fide intention of protracting the proceedings.
4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
5. From the averments made on behalf of the petitioners and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to set aside the order, dated 13.7.2009, passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, as prayed for by the petitioners.
6. It is seen that sufficient cause has not been shown by the respondents for filing the interlocutory applications, at a belated stage, after the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.362 of 2004, had commenced. Further, the trial Court has not given sufficient reasons for allowing the applications, even though they had been filed after the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.362 of 2004, had commenced. In such circumstances, the civil revision petitions stand allowed. The Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, is directed to hear and dispose of the suit, in O.S.No.362 of 2004, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
