Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Judgment Reserved on : 22.02.2021 Judgment Pronounced on : 16.07.2021 CORAM:
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SESHASAYEE CRP(MD) Nos.915, 943, 967, 991 & 330 of 2020
1.Selvaraj .... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.915/2020 2.Revathi .... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.943/2020 3.Thaibabanu .... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020 4.A.Amutha .... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.991/2020 5.Ayyanar .... Petitioner in CRP.(MD)No.330/2020 Vs.
1.Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant India Limited Represented through its Project Director Koodankulam, Ramanathapuram Taluk Tirunelveli District. ... Sole Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.915/2020
2.Seethai Kasi ... 1st Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.943/2020 3.Sudhakar ... 2nd Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.943/2020
4.The State of Tamil Nadu Through its Thoothukudi District Collector Thoothukudi. ... 3rd Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.943/2020
5.The Tahsildar Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi.
... 4th Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.943/2020
6.Shahul Proprietor of Kasim Textiles Textiles D.No.214, East Veli Street Puliyankulam, Silaiman Madurai – 625 012. ... 1st Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
7.Sekar Proprietor of Anitha Weaving Mill D.No.145, F6 West Car Street Thiruchengode – 637 211 Namakkal District. ... 2nd Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
8.Sivakumar Proprietor of Deiva Lakshmi Textiles D.No.DF499, Avinashi Road Vanchipalayam Tiruppur – 641 663. ... 3rd Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
9.Arusamy Sivaraj Proprietor of Nidhie Weaving Mill D.No.389/2, Chettipalayam Road Palladam Tiruppur – 641 664. ... 4th Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
10.Sekar Proprietor of Srijayam Knits D.No.2/1083, NVVB Layout Andipalayam Tiruppur – 641 687. ... 5th Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
11.Thirupathy Proprietor of Suthan Textiles D.No.167, SIDCO, Kappalaur Madurai – 625 008. ... 6th Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
12.Ramalingam Proprietor of Rani Textiles Plot No.525, APIC Growth Centre Kulapalli Village, Madipadu Region Ongal – 523 211 Prakasam District Andhra Pradesh State. ... 7th Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
13.Karthik Proprietor of Rasi Vinayaga Mills D.No.2/121-17, Murugan Palayam Vanchipalayam Tiruppur – 641 663. ... 8th Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.967/2020
14.I.Murugan @ Agasthilingam ... 1st Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.991/2020
15.Usha Rani ... 2nd Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.991/2020 16.Meera ... 3rd Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.991/2020
17.Athilakshmi ... Sole Respondent in CRP.(MD)No.330/2020 Prayer in CRP(MD).No.915 of 2020 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Sub Court, Vallioor to number the plaint in Un-numbered O.S.No.... of 2019 [Filing No.OS/867/2019 (CNR.No.TNTL070008492019)] on the file of the Sub Court, Vallioor.
Prayer in CRP(MD).No.943 of 2020 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, to take on file and number the plaint in Un-numbered O.S.No.... of 2020 pending in file No.2647/2020 dated 03.09.2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, and to decide the same on merits in accordance with law within a time frame fixed by this Court, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
Prayer in CRP(MD).No.967 of 2020 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Return order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam in unnumbered O.S.S.R.No.4611 of 2020, and to direct the Principal District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam to number the said Original Suit.
Prayer in CRP(MD).No.991 of 2020 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 27.08.2020 passed in Un-numbered Suit in C.F.No.129 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court , Bhoothapandy, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
Prayer in CRP(MD).No.330 of 2020 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the District Munsif Court, Melur in unnumbered O.S.No..... of 2020 and to number the plaint within a time frame as fixed by this Court and decide the same on merits in accordance with law.
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Nallathambi (in both CRP (MD) No.915 &991/2020)
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai (in CRP (MD) No.943/2020)
Mr.R.Gowri Shankar (in CRP (MD) No.967/2020)
Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan (in CRP (MD) No.330/2020)
Amicus Curiea Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, Mr. Shankar Murali & Mr.J.Barathan
COMMON ORDER
1.1 This batch of cases and many more of like variety that oft frequent this Court with, what has now become a familiar grievance and have a common complaint:
➢ When a plaint is presented before the Registry on the Original Side of the District Judiciary, the Registry while scrutinizing it for evaluating its merit for registration, raises baffling if not mindless objections, most of which may be relevant only for final adjudication and not for registering the plaint. And these objections eventually bear the signature of the judicial officer concerned and hence they become the Court’s objections.
➢ Secondly, that plaints are repeatedly returned for curing defects, with the Registry/Court raising its objections in installments.
➢ That a plaint is not taken up for scrutiny for weeks or months, and is neither taken on file, nor returned for weeks to months on end. (Even in this batch there was a CRP(PD) 943/2020 which made a complaint falling in this variety)
1.2 It requires no more than invoking the maxim ‘res ipsa loquitor’ to explain the inconvenience which the Registry and Courts might be creating for the litigants or their counsel. Are not such instances obstructive of right to access justice? Does it not then reflect an element of apathy or plain insensitivity in certain quarters of the District Judiciary? This Court consciously avoids a tempting-drift to waste its efforts in a pointless endeavour to fix the blame, as it realizes that there is a greater responsibility and a marked need to provide the correctives.
2. Before embarking to deal with the larger issue, let the facts of each of the cases in this batch that provided the cause for this Court to do what it proposes to do be introduced:
A. CRP(MD) 915 of 2020:
The grievance of the petitioner here is that his plaint was assigned a Diary No OS.SR 867/2019, but has not been registered as a suit. The prayer in the plaint is for recovery of a block of land measuring 2.44 acres in Sy.No:218/2A plus a bore well and couple of buildings. The defendant shown in the plaint was Koodankulam Atomic Energy India Ltd. The pleaded cause of action for the suit is that while the lands adjacent to the suit property were acquired for the purposes associated with the Koodankulam Atomic Energy project, the suit property was not included in the acquisition. It further states that part of S.No:218/2 was acquired, and on acquisition the survey field for the acquired portion was sub-divided into S.No:218/2B, whereas the portion not acquired was assigned S.No:218/2A. However, while issuing patta to the defendant, S.No:218/2A was also included. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had instituted O.S.89/2015 seeking a declaration of his title to the property in Sy. No.218/2A. However, there appeared to have crept an error in providing the correct survey number. Therefore, I.A.2/2019 was filed to amend the plaint. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was forcibly evicted from Sy. No 218/2A and a compound wall too has been constructed. Hence, the petitioner had filed a suit under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act. On 21-08-2019, the plaint was returned.
The grounds of return are:
“1.How the suit against the land acquisition proceeding is respect of public project is maintainable in law?
2.As per the plaint records, a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed before the PDM, Valliyoor and pending in O.S.No.89/2015. Hence, how the suit between the same parties with regard to very same property is maintainable in law to be explored.
3.As per the plaint, annexed document No.7, patta, property is belonged to the defendant by way of land acquisition proceedings. Hence, how the suit is maintainable to be explored.
4.Clean copy to be filed.
Hence, returned. Time two months.”
The petitioner has answered each of these grounds. Now it was again returned. The grounds are:
“1.Previous return endorsement dated 21.08.2015 is still holds good.
2.As per Section 6 of the Specif
