Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1808 (MAD)

K. Sekar v. Vijiyalakshmi

2010-04-16

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 8.12.2009, made in I.A.No.134 of 2009, in O.S.No.126 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. 2. The petitioner herein is the second defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.126 of 2008, filed by the respondents 1 to 3. The suit, in O.S.No.126 of 2008, had been filed for partition and separate possession. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.134 of 2009, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to reject the plaint on the ground of limitation. 3. The trial Court, by its order, dated 8.12.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.134 of 2009, stating that the application had been filed, belatedly, and that the issue regarding limitation could be decided in the suit, during its trial. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that order of the trial Court, dated 8.12.2009, made in I.A.No.134 of 2009, is not sustainable, either in law or on facts. Since, the plaintiffs in the suit, who are respondents 1 to 3 herein, have no cause of action, the suit filed by them is not maintainable and that it is barred by limitation. He had also submitted that the respondents ought to have filed a suit for cancellation of the partition, which had already taken place, in respect of the suit schedule properties. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the issues raised in the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, in I.A.No.134 of 2009, could be decided during the trial in the suit, in O.S.No.126 of 2008, since, the trial Court had framed the issues for adjudication. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, in I.A.No.134 of 2009. Since, the issues raised by the petitioner, in I.A.No.134 of 2009, are to be decided in the suit, in O.S.No.126 of 2008, during its trial, the civil revision petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.