C.R.P.No.4225 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.4225 of 2022 and

C.M.P.No.22142 of 2022

Subramani

..

Petitioner

vs

1. Muthusamy

2. Gowri

3. Senthilkumar

4. Malar

5. Jayanthi

6. Periannan

7. Manga

8. Madhaiyan

9. Lakshmi

..

Respondents

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India seeking to set aside the fair and decretal order passed

by the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri dated 29.01.2020 made in

I.A.No.428 of 2018 in O.S.No.43 of 2016 and to allow the interlocutory

application as prayed for.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4225 of 2022

For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Pradeep

For Respondents

:

Mr.V.G.Senthilkumar

for respondent 1

No Appearance

for respondents 2 to 9

ORDER

The civil revision is filed against the fair and decretal order dated

29.1.2020 passed in I.A.No.428 of 2018 in O.S.No.43 of 2016.

2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2016,

instituted by the respondent for declaration and permanent injunction. The

revision petitioner also filed another suit in O.S.No.18 of 2016 for the relief

for declaration and permanent injuction, which is also pending.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the

petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 2016 at the first instance and the

respondent filed O.S.No.43 of 2016, which is also for the same relief and

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4225 of 2022

therefore, the subsequent suit filed in O.S.No.43 of 2016 is to be stayed till

the disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.18 of 2016.

3. The Trial Court adjudicated the issues and made a finding that there

are discrepancies in respect of the property details in both O.S.No.18 of

2016 and O.S.No.43 of 2016, therefore, the suit cannot be stayed and

accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

4. Once the Trial Court found that there are some discrepancies in

respect of the claim set out in the plaint in two different suits, then, stay of

either of the suits cannot be considered and the suit is to be proceeded on

merits and in accordance with law. Such interlocutory applications are filed

by the parties in order to drag the proceedings one way of the other. By

keeping the civil revision petition pending before the High Court, the

parties are filing memo before the Trial Court and seeking adjournments for

indefinite period and such procedures cannot be encouraged by the Courts.

In the event of no such stay in the civil revision petitions by the High

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4225 of 2022

Courts, then the suits are to be proceeded with, on merits and in accordance

with law and adjournments are to be granted only on genuine grounds and

by recording such reasons.

5. Unnecessary adjournments sought for on flimsy grounds are to be

rejected by imposing maximum costs. The idea of the parties for forum

shopping or to drag on the proceedings are to be thwarted and the Courts are

expected to be cautious in this regard. Interlocutory applications after

applications are filed knowing the fact that there is no substance. Thus, the

interlocutory applications, if filed with the motive to drag on the

proceedings, then the Courts are expected to dealt with such applications

without any undue delay and if such ill-motives are established, maximum

costs is to be imposed.

6. In the present case, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application

in I.A.No.428 of 2018, which was kept pending for about two years

unnecessarily, which would affect the disposal of the suit. This being the

4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.4225 of 2022

factum established, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the

order impugned in the present civil revision petition.

7. Accordingly, the fair a