C.R.P.Nos.1100 &1102 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:20.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

C.R.P.Nos.1100 &1102 of 2021

and C.M.P.No.8562 of 2021

Tamilselvi

...Petitioner in both C.R.P's

Versus

1.Muruganandam

2.Geetha

3.Shakila

... Respondents in both C.R.P's

PRAYER in CRP.No.1100 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under

Section 115 of CPC, 1908, against the order and decreetal order made in

I.A.No.123 of 2019 in I.A.No.244 of 2016 in O.S.No.132 of 2010 dated

04.02.2021 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

PRAYER in CRP.No.1102 of 2021: Civil Revision Petition filed under

Section 115 of CPC, 1908, against the order and decreetal order made in

I.A.No.54 of 2019 in O.S.No.132 of 2010 dated 04.02.2021 on the file of the

District Munsif, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

For Petitioner in both C.R.P's

: Mr.S.Saravana Kumar

For Respondents1 to 3 in both C.R.P's : Mr.K.A.Ravindran

________

Page 1 of 6

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

C.R.P.Nos.1100 &1102 of 2021

COMMON ORDER

The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner would submit that the

Revision Petitioner as Plaintiff in O.S.No.132 of 2010 has filed a suit for bare

injunction against the Defendants The suit was proceeded and the same was

decreed in favour of the Plaintiff on 03.10.2013. Aggrieved by the decree

granted in favour of the Plaintiff, the Defendants have preferred an appeal in

A.S.No.31 of 2013. In the appeal, the learned Sub-Judge, Gudiyattam had

remanded the suit back to the learned District Munsif, Gudiyattam to decide the

title. After remand, the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.224 of 2016 for amendment

of the plaint which was posted for several adjournments. The Defendant had

filed counter on 23.08.2016 and it was adjourned to several days to hear the

enquiry. Subsequently, on 06.10.2016 enquiry heard and reserved for orders.

On 19.10.2016, orders was not pronounced instead it was suo motto re-opened

for clarification and again adjourned on several hearings on 26.04.2017. On

29.04.2017, the suit was dismissed for default.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner

that to hear enquiry, the presence of the parties are not necessary. In this case,

the learned District Munsif had heard the enquiry and reserved orders.

________

Page 2 of 6

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

C.R.P.Nos.1100 &1102 of 2021

Subsequently, it was suo motto re-opened for clarification. If at all, it is to be

clarified with the learned Counsel and not with the parties. Nowhere in the

adjourned days, the learned District Munsif had passed orders directing the

parties to appear before the Court. Further, it is the contention of the learned

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the suit has been remanded with the

specific direction to consider the title. Therefore, the Plaintiff was forced to file

a petition seeking amendment of the plaint. While so, the learned Judge had

dismissed it as though the parties were not present for enquiry. Subsequently,

the suit was also dismissed. The petition filed by the Petitioner to condone the

delay in filing the petition to restore the suit in I.A.No.54 of 2019 was resisted

by the Defendant as Respondent by filing counter. Based on the counter filed

by the Defendant in I.A.No.54 of 2019, the learned Judge had dismissed the

petition stating that no proper reasons.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner seeks to set aside the

order of dismissal and to restore the suit to enable the Plaintiff to agitate her

valuable right.

________

Page 3 of 6

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

C.R.P.Nos.1100 &1102 of 2021

4. The learned Counsel for the Respondent vehemently objects to the

submissions of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner by stating that

the Respondents have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.31 of 2013. The same was

allowe