Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4927 (MAD)

Thirupalliappa & Another v. Geetha & Others

2009-11-16

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed this revision petition praying for issuance of an order to set aside the order dated 24.07.2009 made in un-numbered O.S.No. Of 2009 passed by the learned District Munsif, Hosur and also for a further direction to entertain the plaint in accordance with law. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs urges before this Court that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit on the file of the learned District Munsif, Hosur praying for the relief of declaration of the revision petitioners/plaintiffs title to the suit property, for the relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction to remove any superstructure built by the defendants in the suit property and that the said suit has not been taken on file by the learned District Munsif, Hosur and in fact the plaint has been returned by means of an order on 24.07.2009 raising a query as to how the suit is maintainable, since the title of the suit property has already been declared in O.S.No.276 of 1987 and one month time has been granted for compliance. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, the query of the learned District Munsif, Hosur has been answered on 29.07.2009 by revision petitioners/plaintiffs through their counsel, but once again the plaint has been returned on 30.07.2009 by the learned District Munsif, Hosur mentioning the following: "30.07.2009: Returned 1. Prior return dated 24.07.2009 not properly complied with. 2. Authority if any to be produced. 4. The core contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs is that Time one month." the trial Court has committed an error in going into the merits of the matter before numbering the plaint and the said return made by the trial Court on 24.07.2009 and later on 30.07.2009 are not correct in the eye of law. 5. 4. The core contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs is that Time one month." the trial Court has committed an error in going into the merits of the matter before numbering the plaint and the said return made by the trial Court on 24.07.2009 and later on 30.07.2009 are not correct in the eye of law. 5. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced on the side of the revision petitioners, this Court, on the basis of Equity, Fair Play, Good conscience and even as a matter of prudence, directs the learned District Munsif, Hosur to call the un-numbered plaint in C.F.R.No.3002 in open Court within a period one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to hear the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in threadbare and then pass appropriate orders in regard to numbering or otherwise after providing due opportunity to the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in the manner known to law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this Court disposes of the civil revision petition without costs. 7. Before parting with the case, this Court directs the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs to take return of the original un-numbered plaint filed in O.S.No. Of 2009 before this Court and the petitioners counsel is directed to substitute a xerox copy of the said plaint for the purpose of this Registrys record and immediately after getting the return of the plaint from the Registry, the petitioners are directed to approach the trial Court within a period of seven (7) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.