Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1464 (MAD)

Swaminathan v. Mangayarkarasi (Decd. )

2010-04-01

M.VENUGOPAL

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant has filed this Civil Revision petition as against the order dated 11.06.2009 in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 dated 11.06.2009 has observed that Enquiry heard and consequently allowed the application filed by the respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs praying to amend the application in I.A.No.12753 of 1988 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 filed as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Defendant urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 dated 11.06.2009 to the effect that enquiry heard. Petition is allowed was a non-speaking order in the eye of law and the trial Court has not appreciated of the fact that the eighth respondent was not a party to the suit in O.S.No.7745 of 1985 as well as to the Preliminary Decree proceedings. Also when the eighth respondent has given up his claim over the suit property, the same cannot be allowed to be reagitated in the present suit without recalling his memo of compromise dated 19.11.1986 filed in C.M.A.No.70 of 1986 in O.S.No.7745 of 1985. Indeed the eighth respondent has already declared that the Revision Petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit property and the suit is at the stage of passing of the Final Decree and therefore the eighth respondent cannot be allowed to make a claim in the suit property. But these aspects of the matter have not been looked into from a real and proper perspective by the trial Court, which has resulted in an erroneous order being passed and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. 4. But these aspects of the matter have not been looked into from a real and proper perspective by the trial Court, which has resulted in an erroneous order being passed and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice. 4. It is useful to refer to the averments made by the respondents 1 to 7/applicants/plaintiffs in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 before the trial Court wherein they have among other things mentioned that I.A.No.12753 of 1988 has been filed for passing a Final Decree in the suit for allotting them 1/6th share in the suit property as per the Judgment made by this Court in A.S.No.82 of 2008 dated 04.03.2003 and further that an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed by dividing the property by means and bounds etc., Moreover, this Court in C.R.P.No.3937 of 2007 on 24.04.2008 has directed the eighth respondent (second respondent in I.A.No.8706 of 2008) to get himself impleaded in the pending Final Decree proceedings in I.A.No.12753 of 1988 so as to air his grievance and therefore the eighth respondent has projected I.A.No.7909 of 2008 praying permission of the trial Court to implead him as respondent in I.A.No.12753 of 1988. The said application has been allowed on 03.06.2008 directing the respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs to take necessary steps to amend the application in I.A.No.12753 of 1988 and as such, they have filed the I.A.No.8706 of 2008 seeking the eighth respondent Rajendran to be included after the name of the Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant Swaminathan in the cause title and in the application in I.A.No.12753 of 1988. 5. In the counter filed by the Revision Petitioner/Defendant a plea is raised that the respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs (applicants in I.A.No.8706 of 2008) are not entitled to carry out the amendment in pursuance of the order dated 03.06.2008 passed in I.A.No.7909 of 2008, which was initially allowed on the basis of endorsement made by the counsel for the petitioner but subsequently an application in I.A.No.9420 of 2008 was filed by the Revision Petitioner and the order was set aside and only after a full pledged enquiry, I.A.No.7909 of 2008 was allowed on 16.09.2008 and therefore, the application in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 is to be dismissed. 6. The Revision Petitioner also in his additional counter affidavit in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 before the trial Court has stated that there are two orders in two different C.R.Ps. 6. The Revision Petitioner also in his additional counter affidavit in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 before the trial Court has stated that there are two orders in two different C.R.Ps. on the same issue in regard to the impleading of the eighth respondent directly in the Final Decree proceedings when he is not a party to the suit etc., 7. Generally speaking, it is the primordial duty of a Court of law to ascribe reasons while allowing or dismissing an application when it deals with the same. Only by expressing the reasons for coming to a particular conclusion, the Appellate or Revisional Authority will be in a position to test the benefit of an order when the matter comes up by way of Revision or otherwise in appeal. Following the principles of Natural Justice is a symbol of sound Judicial System. An order bereft of reasoning by a Court of Law is certainly an unjust one from the point of view of an aggrieved person, eventhough the decision or conclusion arrived by the Court of Law in allowing or dismissing an application may be a just and right one. Omission to assign reasons or failure to ascribe reasons by a Court of Law while dealing with an application may amount to the denial and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 8. A scrutiny of the trial Courts order in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 though it reads enquiry heard. Petition is allowed is a cryptic one, this Court is of the considered view that it would have been desirable for the trial Court to have considered the necessary averments of the affidavit in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 and the counter averments and the additional counter averments etc., in a panoramic spectrum and then passed the present impugned order in question. However, since I.A.No.8706 of 2008 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 7/plaintiffs before the trial Court as petitioners praying only to include the name of the eighth respondent as per Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court opines that the I.A.No.8706 of 2008 is only a consequential application to amend the application in I.A.No.12753 of 2008 and that the legal position is that an amendment application under order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code can be entertained at any stage and moreover, the procedural obstacles should not impede the dispensation of justice. Viewed in that angle, there is no infirmity, or material irregularity or patent illegality committed by the trial Court in allowing the application in I.A.No.8706 of 2008 and resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition fails. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.