Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2969 (MAD)

N. Ramesh v. G. Nagarathnammal & Others

2006-11-04

P.SATHASIVAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.Nos.20986, 20985 and 20984 of 2005 in O.S.No.9565 of 1988 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 17.11.2005.) Common Order: The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the order of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 17.11.2005 made in I.A.Nos.20986, 20985 and 20984 of 2005 in O.S.No.9565 of 1988. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The respondents though duly served notice from this Court, they have not chosen to contest the above revisions by engaging a counsel. 4. It is not in dispute that after 17 years of laying the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to produce certain documents in support of his claim. In so far as the first document, which is an order dated 23.08.1987 made in I.A.No.23912/96 and 2/87 in O.S.No.9432/1986, it is not in dispute that against the said order an appeal was filed in CMA No.96/97 and after enquiry, the plaint was ordered to be returned on the ground that proper Court fee was not paid. In such circumstances, as rightly observed by the Court below, no importance need be given to the order passed in the interlocutory application. I am in agreement with the said conclusion. 5. Coming to the documents 2 to 6, the learned trial Judge, after verifying those documents, has arrived at a conclusion that all the documents referred to S.No.141/7, whereas the suit property belongs to S.No.142/4. It is true that by placing seventh document, which is a proceeding issued by the Special Tahsildar, Urban Land Tax, Triplicane Taluk, it is contended that the new town S.No.141/7 relates to old S.No.142/4. By pointing out the same, the learned trial Judge has refused to receive the documents 2 to 7. I am in agreement with the said conclusion. 6. Apart from merits of the documents sought to be marked, it is not in dispute that the suit has been filed on 25.10.1988 and kept pending for more than 17 years. It is also seen that though several witnesses have been examined, no effort was taken to mark those documents all along. 6. Apart from merits of the documents sought to be marked, it is not in dispute that the suit has been filed on 25.10.1988 and kept pending for more than 17 years. It is also seen that though several witnesses have been examined, no effort was taken to mark those documents all along. In such circumstances, apart from the merits, as rightly pointed out by the learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, there is no justification at all for considering the claim of the petitioner after 17 years. I am in entire agreement with the said conclusion. There is no valid ground for interference. Accordingly, all the three revision petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.18591 of 2005 is also dismissed. 7. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1988, the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit as mentioned above.