Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4390 (MAD)

B. K. Rajeswari v. G. Vittal Raj

2009-10-23

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioner/respondent/tenant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 38. 2009 passed in M.P.No.322 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.70 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Appellate Authority should have admitted the M.P.No.322 of 2009 filed by the petitioner praying permission of the authority to adduce evidence and the learned Appellate Authority has not appreciated of the fact that the opportunity has to be provided to the revision petitioner to adduce and prove the case by providing sufficient time to file necessary documents in M.P.No.322 of 2009, when the main R.C.A.No.70 of 2008 is taken up for hearing and therefore, the learned Appellate Authority has not considered the above aspects in a pragmatic manner which has resulted in substantial and material prejudice to the revision petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that the learned Appellate Authority has posted the M.P.No.322 of 2009 along with main R.C.A. and now the M.P.No.322 of 2009 and R.C.A.No.70 of 2008 are pending before the said authority and in law, the Appellate Authority has to decide the M.P.No.322 of 2009 along with the hearing of R.C.A.No.70 of 2008 and indeed, the revision petitioner is not an aggrieved person when on the side of revision petitioner a decision of this Court in 1994 2 L.W. 376 has been cited wherein it is held that such an application to let in additional evidence and not to be taken independently and it has to be taken up along with the main appeal and therefore, prays for dismissing the civil revision petition. 4. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side and noticed the same. 5. In the docket order in M.P.No.322 of 2009 as seen from the typed set of papers the relevant notings of the learned Appellate Authority are seen on respective dates and the same are extracted below: "Notice by 31.07.2009 Sd/- 28.07.2009 31.07.2009 Notice by 05.08.2009 05.08.2009 Notice A.O.S. filed counter by 11.08.2009 Sd/-11.08.2009 Counter by 17.08.2009 Sd/-17.08.2009 Counter filed. Enquiry by 20.08.2009 Sd/-20.08.2009 Enquiry. Enquiry by 20.08.2009 Sd/-20.08.2009 Enquiry. Heard both side call on with RCA on 25.08.2009 adjourned to 25.08.2009 Sd/-25.08.2009 Call along with RCA on 31.08.2009 Sd/-25.08.2009 31.08.2009 Call with RCA on 04.09.2009" 6. On going through the order passed in M.P.No.322 of 2009 dated 31.08.2009 by the learned Appellate Authority to the effect that M.P.No.322 of 2009 has been directed to be called along with RCA on 04.09.2009 and also because of the well settled principle of law that an application to receive additional evidence will have to be taken up along with the main matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be called as an aggrieved person and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition filed by her is per se not maintainable in law and resultantly, the same is dismissed to prevent an aberration of justice. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Since the R.C.A.No.70 of 2008 is pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in all fairness, this Court directs the learned Appellate Authority to dispose of the main RCA within a period two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.