Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2799 (MAD)

Paanchaalai v. Chinnasamy

2012-07-04

V.DHANAPALAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed in Memo by the learnedDistrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Papireddipatti, Dharmapuri District, in O.S.No.675 of 2008 dated 15.2.2012. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.675 of 2008 and she has also filed a Suit in O.S.No.439 of 2008, on the file of the learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Papireddypatti, the very same Court, for a declaration of title and for possession and enjoyment of the property. The respondents herein filed a Suit in O.S.No.675 of 2008, seeking for the very same relief of declaration of title and for possession and enjoyment of the property. Both the suits are pending before the same Court viz. learned District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Papireddypatti. The trial Court on the basis of the Memo filed by the respondents herein who are the defendants in O.S.No.439 of 2008, passed an order on 15.2.2012, which is to the following effect: "Heard. Though the defendant opposed to conduct the trial of this case jointly with O.S.No.439/08 on the ground that the schedule of properties mentioned in the above suits are different. On perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.439/08 it is evident that the defendant is seeking pathway right in the plaintiff's property. Hence this court finds that it would be in the interest of both parties to try both suits jointly. Accordingly, joint trial of this case is ordered along with O.S.No.439/08. For trial, call on 20.2.2012." The said order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. Mr. T. Panchatsaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently pleaded before this Court that the Suit properties in both the Suits are entirely different and therefore, there cannot be a joint trial, however, the trial Court has not considered the objection raised by the parties, and passed the order. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. It is seen that the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.675 of 2008 and she is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.439 of 2008 and the respondents are vice versa in both the Suits which are filed for declaration of title and for possession and enjoyment of the property. 5. It is seen that the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.675 of 2008 and she is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.439 of 2008 and the respondents are vice versa in both the Suits which are filed for declaration of title and for possession and enjoyment of the property. The matter is pending before the same Court between the same parties and therefore, after the filing of the written statement in one of the case, viz. O.S.No.439 of 12008 and taking into account the contentions as well as the issues involved in both the Suits, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that in the interest of both the parties, it would be appropriate to try both the Suits jointly and accordingly ordered for joint trial of the Suit in O.S.No.675 of 2008 along with O.S.No439 of 2008. 6. On a perusal of the Plaints filed by the parties, the schedule of property and the pleadings relating to the particular sale deed dated 25.5.1973, it could be seen that the subject matter of both the Suits are having common grounds and therefore, I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court in ordering joint trial. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition deserves no merit and consideration and the same is dismissed. However, the Parties are at liberty to expedite the trial. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.