Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1287 (MAD)

Muthulakshmi v. Apurvam Ammal

2013-03-07

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The fourth defendant in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternative for recovery of possession is the petitioner before this court. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the dismissal of her application filed in I.A. No. 322 of 2007 in O.S. No. 235 of 2007 whereby she sought for framing of additional issues. The Court below rejected the said application by observing that the issues already framed in the suit on 3.10.2007 would take care of the issues now sought to be raised additionally by the petitioner and therefore, there is no necessity to frame additional issues. The petitioner filed the above application before the Court below by contending that there was no issues raised with regard to pre-existing rights conferred on one Kuppayee Ammal under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, such rights can be considered only by raising additional issues. The Court below found that the present petition, which is filed after conclusion of the evidence on both sides is unnecessary, especially, under the circumstances that the issues already framed earlier on 3.10.2007 would take care of the issues which are sought to be raised additionally by the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. For appreciation of the facts, the issues which are framed on 3.10.2007 by the Court below are extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” 5. The following are the additional issues which are sought to be raised by the petitioner. “TAMIL” 6. While perusing the issues which are already framed as well as the issues which are now sought to be raised in addition, it is seen that the issues which are already framed more particularly with regard to issue Nos. 5 & 6 will cover the issues which are sought to be raised by the petitioner additionally. Therefore, the Court below has rightly held that the additional issues are not necessarily to be framed for disposing of the matter. It is also found by the Court below that the evidence on both sides were closed and the matter was posted for argument. At that stage the present application was filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court below has rightly held that the additional issues are not necessarily to be framed for disposing of the matter. It is also found by the Court below that the evidence on both sides were closed and the matter was posted for argument. At that stage the present application was filed by the petitioner. At any event, as the petitioner's interest is not affected in view of the fact that the issues already framed by the Court below will cover the issues which are sought to be raised by the petitioner, I am of the firm view that there is no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.