Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 982 (MAD)

Veerasamy Naidu & Others v. Pushparani

2005-07-01

R.BANUMATHI

body2005
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.02.2004 passed by the District Munsif, Namakkal in I.A.No.125 of 2004 in O.S.No.614 of 1999, dismissing the Application filed under Sec.151 C.P.C to reopen the case to examine the Revenue Official. Plaintiffs are the Revision Petitioners. 2. O.S.No.614 of 1999:- The Suit Property relates to S.No.426/21-0.127.5 Hec. of Vadavathoor Village. The Plaintiffs filed the Suit alleging that the Suit Property in S.No.426/21 a village Temple is situated and the Suit Property is being used for the gathering and for the celebration of festivals in the Temple. According to the Plaintiffs, the Suit Property is a poromboke land and no patta has been issued. Claiming herself to be entitled to the Suit Property, the Defendant was interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction. 3. Denying the Plaint averments, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that she is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property for more than fifteen years. According to her, patta was also granted in her favour. The Defendant had already filed O.S.No.79 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif, Namakkal. In the said Suit, in I.A.No.118 of 1999, Injunction Application was filed and the Application was allowed granting temporary injunction, as against which the Plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal. When the Defendant was not in the Suit village, the Plaintiffs have attempted to cut and remove the trees and also attempted to remove the thatched shed. About few days prior to the institution of the Suit, the Plaintiffs keeping their things in the Suit Property and falsely claiming to be in possession of the Suit Property filed the Suit. Since the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the Suit Property, they are not entitled to the relief. 4. The Trial commenced and the Parties adduced evidence. When the case was posted for arguments, I.A.No.125 of 2004 was filed by the Plaintiffs to reopen the case and to examine the Revenue Officials. According to the Plaintiffs, D.W.3 is said to have issued Ex.B.1 - patta, but D.W.3 denied his signature. To clarify that position, Ex.B.8-Patta was marked through D.W.4 – Staff from the Collectorate Treasury, Namakkal. Ex.B.8-Patta does not relate to the Suit Property - Vadavathoor Village. According to the Plaintiffs, D.W.3 is said to have issued Ex.B.1 - patta, but D.W.3 denied his signature. To clarify that position, Ex.B.8-Patta was marked through D.W.4 – Staff from the Collectorate Treasury, Namakkal. Ex.B.8-Patta does not relate to the Suit Property - Vadavathoor Village. Hence, to clarify the position, examination of Revenue Official is very much essential and filed the Application under Sec.151 C.P.C to reopen the case for the purpose of examining the Revenue Official. 5. The Defendant resisted the Application contending that Ex.B.8 was marked only for the purpose of comparison of the signature of D.W.3, who has denied his signature in Ex.B.1 and further examination of Revenue Official is not necessitated. 6. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the Trial Court found that already Revenue Official have been examined and that there is no necessity to further examine the Revenue Official. Pointing out that Ex.B.8 has been marked only to compare the signature of D.W.3, learned District Munsif held that there is no necessity to recall the Revenue Official. 7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application, the Plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners has contended that unless the Revenue Official is examined, the doubts regarding Exs.B.1 and B.8 cannot be clarified. When Ex.B.8 – Patta does not refer to the Suit Property and refers to some other property, the position is to be clarified. The Impugned Order is assailed that the District Munsif erred in saying that it is not necessary to reopen the case. 8. Drawing the attention of the Court to Ex.B.8-Patta issued by D.W.3, learned counsel for the Respondent / Defendant has submitted that Ex.B.8 has been marked only for comparison of Signature of D.W.3 in Ex.B.1. The further contention is that when admittedly Ex.B.8 refers to some other documents, there is no necessity to recall the Revenue Official to clarify the position. 9. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, impugned Order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition: i. Whether the case is to be reopened for the purpose of further examination of Revenue Official for clarification regarding Ex.B.8? ii.Whether the Impugned Order declining to reopen the case for further examination of the Revenue Official suffers from material irregularity / jurisdictional error warranting interference? 10. ii.Whether the Impugned Order declining to reopen the case for further examination of the Revenue Official suffers from material irregularity / jurisdictional error warranting interference? 10. The Suit Property relates to S.No.426/21-0.127.5 Hec. of Vadavathoor Village. The Plaintiffs claim the Suit Property to be the property of poromboke land wherein the festivals of the Village being celebrated. The Defendant claims that Patta has been granted in her name. On those contentious issues, the parties adduced evidence. For better understanding of the points urged, order of examination of Witnesses in the Trial Court is to be noted:- Plaintiff examined as .... P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer .... P.W.2 (Stated no Patta granted in respect of suit Property) Defendant examined as .... D.W.1 Present Tahsildar .... D.W.2 (Suit Property is a poromboke land) Retired Tahsildar – Rathinavelu .... D.W.3 (Who has denied his signature in Ex.B.8 – Patta) Officer of Treasury .... D.W.4 Namakkal Collectorate Through whom Ex.B.8 – Patta relating to some other property was marked for the purpose of comparison. 11. Ex.B.8-Patta was granted by D.W.3 – Retired Tahsildar. Since D.W.3 denied his signature, onbehalf of the Defendant, D.W.4 – An officer from the Treasury, Collectorate Namakkal was examined. Through D.W.4 – Ex.B.8 – Patta relating to some other property issued by D.W.3 (containing the Signature of D.W.3) was produced. Ex.B.8 though a Patta relating to the property other than the Suit Property, it was produced mainly for the purpose of comparison, which the Plaintiffs are also aware. In the Affidavit, the Plaintiffs have stated the reason for examination of recalling the Witness as noted:- ".....gpujpthjp jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;s vf;rpgpl; gp 8 Mtzkhd gl;lh Vnjh jhth brhj;Jf;F tH';fg;gl;ljhf Twg;gl;L rK:fk; nfhh;l;oy; Mtzkhf FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkw;go Mtzk; v';fs; fpuhkk; Md tltj;JhUf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;ljy;y vd;gJk; nkw;go Mtzk; ntW fpuhkj;jpw;F rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ vd;gij bghWj;J rK:fk; nfhh;l;oy; tUtha;Jiw mjpfhhpfis tprhhpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W ml;it!; bra;ag;gl;nld;....” On those averments in the Affidavit, the learned District Munsif has rightly held : "....gp/rh/M/8 MtzkhdJ gpujpthjp jug;g[ rhl;rp 3?d; ifbaGj;ij xg;g[ nehf;fnt FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ .... vdnt tUtha; Jiwapdiu kPz;Lk; miHj;J tprhhpf;f ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy....” 12. While so, the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs are not right in saying that Ex.B.8 does not relate to the Suit Property – Vadavathoor Village. It is not necessary to clarify that aspect and hence, reopening of the case for the purpose of further examination of Revenue Official is not necessitated. vdnt tUtha; Jiwapdiu kPz;Lk; miHj;J tprhhpf;f ntz;oa mtrpak; ,y;iy....” 12. While so, the Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs are not right in saying that Ex.B.8 does not relate to the Suit Property – Vadavathoor Village. It is not necessary to clarify that aspect and hence, reopening of the case for the purpose of further examination of Revenue Official is not necessitated. The Impugned Order manifests the clear understanding of the Ex.B.8 by the lower Court that it has been filed only for the purpose of comparison of the Signature and has got nothing to do with the Suit Property. The Impugned Order is in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. When the case has been posted for argument, the Application had been filed on 18.02.2004. At that stage, reopening of the case for the purpose of further examination of Revenue Official has not been warranted. Learned District Munsif rightly declined to reopen the case. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference exercising the supervisory power of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 23.02.2004 passed by the District Munsif, Namakkal in I.A.No.125 of 2004 in O.S.No.614 of 1999 is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.6704 of 2004 is also dismissed.