Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4275 (MAD)

N. Gopal v. B. Lakshmi Narayanan & Another

2008-11-19

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The civil revision petitioner/ petitioner/ plaintiff has projected the civil revision petition as against the order dated 20.08.2008 passed in I.A. No. 6899 of 2008 in O.S. No. 1483/2008 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff/ petitioner under Section 151 of C.P.C, praying for permission of the court to deposit the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- into court, to the credit of the Suit O.S. No.1483/2008. 2. The trial court while dismissing the I.A. No.6899/2008 has inter-alia observed that the revision petitioner/ petitioner/ plaintiff has suppressed the facts pertaining to earlier suits and further that the auction in regard to the mortgage property has been over on 27.03.2005 and under these circumstances, whether the suit filed by the petitioner is to be entertained or not and resultantly dismissed the application, without costs. 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ petitioner/ plaintiff urges before this court that the trial court should have allowed the I.A. No. 6899/2008 for depositing the admitted principle amount and that the trial court has not taken into account the fact that the present suit is a comprehensive one for redemption and all the other earlier suits were filed for permanent injunction only. Moreover, the averment in paragraph 9 of the plaint, is to the effect, earlier auction would not be completed since the bidder did not deposit the amount has not been taken note of by the trial court and that the trial court has pre-judged the main suit itself without going into the merits of the same and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. .4. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants submit that the first auction sale has been conducted on 112. 2000 and that the revision petitioner filed the Suit O.S. No. 7669/2000 and also an Interlocutory Application praying for interim injunction and that the court has granted four months time to repay the entire loan amount, but no payment has been made and consequently the suit and the petition got dismissed and again an auction sale took place on 20.06.2001 and that the revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 3438/2001 and both the suit and the petition were dismissed and again the third auction took place on 211. 2001 and that the revision petitioner filed Suit O.S. No. 6756/2001 and that an ex-parte order of injunction has been granted but the same has not been extended and again the auction took place on 08.02.2002 and the revision petitioner/ plaintiff gave an undertaking to discharge the loan within 15 days, but the same has not been complied with and the fifth auction took place on 27.03.2005 and at that time, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed a Suit O.S. No. 1906/2005 wherein a conditional injunction has been granted and again the revision petitioner has not complied with the order and hence the auction sale has been completed on 27.03.2005 and the suits as well as the petitions were dismissed and later the revision petitioner filed A.S. No. 407/2007 against the Suit O.S. No. 1906/2005 and the said appeal has been dismissed on 14.02.2008 and the revision petitioner/ plaintiff filed another suit O.S. No. 2971/2005 praying for a relief to restrain the Sub Registrar, not to register the sale deed and the same has been dismissed on 23.01.2008 and moreover, the revision petitioner/ plaintiff filed RCOP No. 1147 of 2004 on the ground of willful default against the second respondent and the same has been dismissed on 212. 2005 and besides these proceedings, the revision petitioner has filed a Suit O.S. No. 1483/2008 for redemption of the property and the present I.A.No. 6899/2008 is for deposit of money into court and the trial court has clearly held that the revision petitioner has suppressed all the earlier factual details pertaining to the cases initiated and when the auction has been completed on 27.03.2005 in regard to the mortgage property, the question is that whether the original Suit O.S. No. 1483/2008 filed by the plaintiff is maintainable or not, is a matter to be decided and at this juncture, allowing the application is not proper and has resultantly dismissed the application, without costs. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the auction bidder has died earlier and therefore he could not deposit the money and consequently there has been no sale at all and therefore the revision petitioner/ plaintiff has been advised to file the present suit O.S. No. 1483/2008 for redemption of scheduled property and there is no impediment for the trial court to permit the revision petitioner/ plaintiff to deposit the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- into court, to the credit of the above suit. 6. This court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their contentions. .7. It is brought to the notice of the court that the main Suit O.S. No. 1483/2008 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai has been posted in the special list on 012. 2008. When the trial court has posted the main case in the special list on 012. 2008 and whether the suit filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff is maintainable or not, is the question which crops up for rumination before the trial court, at this stage the Interlocutory Application No.6899/2008 filed by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/ plaintiff is not a case of necessity and this court is not interfering with the orders of trial court passed in I.A. No. 6899/2008 and consequently the civil revision petition fails and resultantly the same is hereby dismissed. 8. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial court in I.A. 6899/2008 is confirmed by this court. The trial court is directed to dispose of the main suit, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to report compliance to this court. It is open to the parties to raise all the contentions before the trial court in the main suit, in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.