Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4402 (MAD)

Rangammal v. Prema & Others

2008-11-27

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 20.06.2008 in I.A.No.553 of 2008 in O.S.No.191 of 1996 passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee in allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying for joint trial or simultaneous trial of O.S.No.191 of 1996 along with O.S.No.1005 of 2005. 2. The trial Court, while allowing the I.A.No.553 of 2008, has inter alia observed that since documents to be marked in both the cases are likely to be same and evidence to be let in is likely to be by the same parties. In the interest of justice, in order to dispose of both these suits on merits, they can be taken up together for joint trial and resultantly, has allowed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent/ plaintiff urges before this Court that the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.553 of 2008 is against law, evidence and probabilities of the case and when the reliefs sought for in the two suits are different then the trial Court ought not to have allowed the I.A.No.553 of 2008 and further that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the suit filed by the revision petitioner is of the year 1996 and whereas the suit filed by the respondents is of the year 2005 and that the suit filed by the revision petitioner is not to disturb his possession without due process of law and if the said suit is tried along with the other suit O.S.No.1005 of 2005 which is filed for partition then the revision petitioner will suffer great hardship and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial Court in proper perspective and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 contends that the order passed by the trial Court in allowing the I.A.No.553 of 2008 for joint trial of two cases is proper in the eye of law and that the trial Court has ascribed proper and valid reasons while allowing the said I.A.No.553 of 2008 and in the interest of justice, the trial Court has ordered for joint trial of two suits and therefore, this Court may not interfere at this stage with the order of the trial Court in this revision. .5. It appears that O.S.No.191 of 1996 has been filed by the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff originally as against defendants 1, 2 and 3 (died) and later defendants 4 to 10 have been arrayed as defendants (as Lrs.) in the suit after amendment of plaint owing to the death of second defendant and third defendant and a relief of permanent injunction has been sought for restraining the defendants, their men, agents or servants from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except by due process of law etc. 6. In the written statement filed by the first defendant to the suit O.S.No.191 of 1996, it is inter alia pleaded that instead of complying with the demand of not to cultivate the suit land and interfere with his possession and enjoyment of suit property, she is continuing the cultivation with the help of her husband without any consent, knowledge of the defendant or right etc. Further, the averment in the written statement filed by the first defendant also goes to show that at no point of time the suit property was leased to the revision petitioner/plaintiff and taking advantage of the defendants absence, since he and his brothers are residing at Chennai, the plaintiffs husband is attempted to trespass into the suit lands and further that he caused an Advocate notice on 17.04.1992 to the plaintiff to resist the attempt of her husband to trespass into the suit property but she failed to do so and in fact she is having the original title deeds with her. In O.S.No.191 of 1996 a memo has been filed by defendants 5 to 7 stating that they are adopting the written statements filed by defendants 1 to 4. 7. In O.S.No.191 of 1996 a memo has been filed by defendants 5 to 7 stating that they are adopting the written statements filed by defendants 1 to 4. 7. Respondents 1 to 6 in the revision petition have filed O.S.No.1005 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee seeking a relief of partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds into 20 equal shares and to allot the plaintiffs 1 to 3 six such shares and allot the plaintiffs 4 to 6 six such shares and to pass final decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner etc. and also for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the 6th defendant, his men, agents, servants, subordinates, superiors etc. from registering any documents that may be presented by the defendants 1, 4 and 5 or by their men and agents, servants etc. and also for the relief of directing the defendants 4 and 5 to pay damages of Rs.3000/- to plaintiffs 1 to 3 and Rs.3000/- to plaintiffs 4 to 6. .8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner has purchased 43 cents from out of the suit properties in O.S.No.191 of 1996 and O.S.No.1005 of 2005 on 012. 2004 and that the suit in O.S.No.1005 of 2005 has not been filed for recovery of possession and he relies on Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code to the effect that where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other questions between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions and therefore, the trial Court based on the pleadings in O.S.No.191 of 1996 can pass a judgment and in that suit, no evidence also required to be let in by parties and in that view of the matter, there is no need for the trial Court to order the said suit to be tried along with O.S.No.1005 of 2005 in the interest of justice. 9. 9. At this stage, one cannot brush aside an important fact that the suit O.S.No.191 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif, Poonamallee is of the year 1996 and now we are in the year 2008. It is to be noted that the purpose of Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code is to enable a litigant to procure a speedy judgment atleast to the extent of the admissions of the defendant entitled that relief to the plaintiff. Since nearly 12 years have elapsed from the date of institution of the suit O.S.No.191 of 1996, the civil revision petitioner invoking the aid of Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code in the year 2008 and that too before this Court in the civil revision petition is of no use and the same is an otiose one, in the considered opinion of this Court. 10. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 brings it to the notice of this Court that earlier O.S.No.191 of 1996 has been dismissed for default in the year 2005 and later the same has been restored. 11. The pith and substance of the contention of the revision petitioner is that the relief sought for in O.S.No.191 of 1996 and the relief prayed for by the respondents 1 to 6 in the suit O.S.No.1005 of 2005 are different and hence, there is no necessity for ordering for a joint trial by the trial Court. It is pertinent to point out that the civil revision petitioner has filed O.S.No.191 of 1996 against the defendants therein praying for the relief of permanent injunction that her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property should not be interfered with except by a due process of law. Admittedly, respondents 1 to 6 have filed the suit O.S.No.1005 of 2005 for partition before the same Court. It appears that P.W.1 in O.S.No.191 of 1996 has been examined in part. 12. Admittedly, respondents 1 to 6 have filed the suit O.S.No.1005 of 2005 for partition before the same Court. It appears that P.W.1 in O.S.No.191 of 1996 has been examined in part. 12. In view of the fact that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has purchased 43 cents of the suit property from the defendants and bearing in mind of another fact that the evidence to be adduced by the parties and the documents to be accepted by them are likely to be one and the same, it is on the basis of fair play, equity and as a matter of prudent course, the two suits O.S.No.191 of 1996 and O.S.No.1005 of 2005 are to be tried jointly to prevent aberration of justice and viewed in that perspective, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.553 of 2008 is a reasonable and proper one based on overall assessment and facts and circumstances of the two cases and the same cannot be found fault with by any means whatsoever and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.