Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2649 (MAD)

Natarajan v. Thirunavukkarasu

2012-06-26

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 04.01.2012 passed in I.A.No.357 of 2011 in O.S.No.15 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For R1, RPAD returned as 'refused' and for R2, returned as 'left'. In fact, no notice to the respondents is also required, as this revision is focussed as against the memo which was filed by the petitioner was rejected. 3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a few broad strokes could be encapsulated thus: The revision petitioner herein filed the suit as against the respondents herein, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell. Ultimately the suit was decreed. Thereafter, I.A.No.357 of 2011 was filed with the following prayer: "To rectify the sale agreement dated 10.02.2006 and amend the plaint, consequently amend the decree, as detailed hereunder as otherwise the petitioner will suffer serious loss and hardship...... DETAILS OF AMENDMENT 1. In item No.2 of the Schedule of property In agreement dated 10.02.2006, plaint and decree Add "New S.No.253/10 instead of New S.No.235/10" 4. Whereupon the Court issued notice to both. Since there was no response from the respondents, the lower Court allowed the application. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, a memo was filed to get the amendment carried out. In the meanwhile, there was change in the incumbency in the post of Principal District Judge. The successor on seeing the memo, simply rejected it doubting the claim of the plaintiff as to whether the real intention of the parties to the agreement to sell was to incorporate the new survey No.253/10 instead of S.No.235/10. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would implore and entreat that such rejection was totally unwarranted, because the predecessor of the learned Judge concerned allowed the amendment, but the successor in office simply rejected the memo. The learned counsel would also submit that even now the revision petitioner is ready to satisfy the consciousness of the Court by producing evidence from the revenue authorities. Instead of resorting to such procedure, the learned Principal District Judge, simply rejected the memo and thereby deprived the revision petitioner to enjoy the fruit of the specific performance decree. 6. The learned counsel would also submit that even now the revision petitioner is ready to satisfy the consciousness of the Court by producing evidence from the revenue authorities. Instead of resorting to such procedure, the learned Principal District Judge, simply rejected the memo and thereby deprived the revision petitioner to enjoy the fruit of the specific performance decree. 6. A mere poring over and perusal of the records produced before me in the form of typed set would evince and evidence, display and demonstrate that the method and manner in which the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the memo is not satisfactory and his predecessor no doubt, allowed the I.A. without hearing the party or probing into the matter thoroughly, but purely based upon the absence of the respondents. Hence the successor developed some doubt about the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff for getting that survey number corrected. In such an event, the successor in office could have very well called upon the plaintiff to produce necessary evidence to satisfy the consciousness of the Court, but without doing it, he simply rejected the memo. Hence I would like to set aside the order passed in the memo and remit the matter back to the learned Principal District Judge Court with the following direction: The learned Principal District Judge shall take the memo on file; whereupon, the plaintiff shall take steps to summon the revenue authorities concerned to appear before the Court with necessary documents relating to the claim of the plaintiff for carrying out correction. If the Court is satisfied with the evidence so produced, then the Court has to carry out the amendment or otherwise, it is open for the learned Judge to reject it for reasons to be recorded. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs.