Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
K. Venkatesh & Others - Appellant
Versus
Dr. K. Balasundaram & Others - Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 3084 of 2016 & 207 of 2022 & CMP. Nos. 15727 of 2016 & 1059 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
For the Petitioners:T.M. Hariharan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, V. Lakshminarayanan, R2 to R5, K.A. Mariappan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of proceedings before other tribunals, such as the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Company Law Board, does not warrant a stay of the trial of a partition suit if the proceedings are not relevant to the relief sought in the suit.
Headnote:
Stay - Partition Suit - Civil Procedure Code - Section 10, Section 151 - Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnamurthi and others [AIR 1982 MADRAS 101]
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed two civil revision petitions against the orders of the District and Sessions Court, seeking to stay the trial of a partition suit until the disposal of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Company Law Board. The trial court dismissed the applications, leading to the civil revision petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Company Law Board were not relevant to the relief of partition claimed by the plaintiff. It held that the trial court rightly dismissed the applications and that the subsequent application filed was an abuse of process of the court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the applications to stay the trial of the partition suit based on the pendency of proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Company Law Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Company Law Board were not relevant to the relief of partition claimed by the plaintiff. It emphasized that the entitlement of the parties in the partition suit would not be affected by the proceedings before the other tribunals.
Final Decision: Both the Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed, confirming the orders of the trial court. The court also confirmed the return endorsement made by the Court below. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in CRP.3084 of 2016 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 13.07.2016 in I.A.No.194 of 2016 in OS.No.581 of 2012 and to order the said application as prayed for.
In CRP.207 of 2022 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Docket Order of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 29.11.2021 in IA.Sr.No.4370 of 2021 in OS.No.581 of 2012 and to order the said application as prayed for.)
Common Order:
1. CRP.No.3084 of 2016 has been preferred against the fair and decreetal order of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 13.07.2016 in I.A.No.194 of 2016 in OS.No.581 of 2012.
2. Similarly, CRP.No.207 of 2022 has been preferred challenging the Docket Order of the same Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore dated 29.11.2021 in I.A.SR.No.4370 of 2021 in OS.No.581 of 2012.
3. Since the issue involved and the parties to the litigations are one and the same, both the revision petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
4. The revision petitioners in CRP.No.3084 of 2016 are defendants 2, 6 & 7 in the said suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit (i) for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff, (ii) for declaration that the judgement and decree dated 17.03.2004 in OS.No.828 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coimbatore is null and void and (iii) for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, the revision petitioners herein filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.194 of 2016 to stay the trial in the said suit till the disposal of the earlier proceedings pending (i) in T.A.No.750 of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, (ii) in AIR No.703 of 2015 filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and (iii) in CP.No.33 of 2000 and C.P.No.7 of 2009 filed before the Company Law Board. The said application was dismissed by order dated 13.07.2016. Aggrieved over that, CRP.No.3084 of 2016 has been preferred.
5. The very same revision petitioners filed another interlocutory application in I.A.SR.No.4370 of 2021 to defer the trial of the said suit till the disposal of CRP.No.3084 of 2016 and the said application was returned on 29.11.2021 with the following endorsement:
“This Court has acted as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency case. Hence, this petition is returned.”
Aggrieved over the said return endorsement, the other civil revision petition in CRP.No.207 of 2022 has been preferred.
6. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition of the alleged 1/3rd share in the suit properties, which are the properties owned by his father late G.Kandasamy; the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and their brother one Gurumurthy (since deceased) are the children of late G.Kandasamy; the 1st respondent herein filed the said suit by stating that G.Kandasamy was managing the properties as Kartha of the joint family; during the life time of his father G.Kandasamy, he held shares in various companies; he also offered some of the properties and shares held in his name as securities for the financial assistance received for running his company; while the family members had partitioned the family properties by virtue of a partition deed dated 30.03.1972, some of the immovable properties and shares held in the companies and other income derived from the agricultural lands etc., were not included;
7.1. Despite the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for partition on the
