Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 191 (MAD)

R. Abaranji Chettiar v. Vishalakshiammal

2013-01-08

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 30.04.2012 passed in I.A.No.148 of 2011 in A.S.No.333 of 2004 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, but there is no representation on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking injunction before the District Munsif Court, Palani, which dismissed the suit on merits, as against which an appeal was filed in A.S.No.333 of 2004. During the pendency of the same, the plaintiff filed the I.A.No.101 of 2008 to get amended the prayer for declaration of title, but that was dismissed, as against which C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2271 and 2272 of 2008 were filed, wherein this Court allowed the amendment and also observed thus: "30. ..... At the time of dismissal of the suit, the District Munsif Court was having jurisdiction and by allowing the amendment, the value of he suit is going to be enhanced and in that context, the appeal can be transferred to the District Court. Therefore, in my opinion, the lower court without considering all these aspects and without assigning any proper and acceptable reasons, dismissed the applications and in the interest of justice, these applications ought to have been allowed. As the revision petitioners filed the applications at a belated stage, they are bound to pay the costs and therefore, the both the civil revision petitions are allowed on payment of costs Rs.5,000/- payable for each revision, to the contesting respondents 4 and 5 together within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs." Thereafter, an application in I.A.No.148 of 2011 was filed by the plaintiff seeking the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Remand the case to the lower Court permitting me to let in necessary further evidence to substantiate my claim of title to the suit property on framing a specific issue as to the title and thus render justice." After hearing both sides, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said application. 4. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the lower appellate Court erroneously dismissed that application and observed that the matter should go only before the District Court. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 would submit that as per the earlier order of this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2271 and 2272 of 2008 dated 13.08.2010, the Sub Court should not have proceeded with the matter and it should have sent the case to the District Court, but instead of doing so, it simply proceeded with the matter. 7. On a mere perusal of the impugned order as well as the earlier order of this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2271 and 2272 of 2008 dated 13.08.2010, what I could glean and understand is that this Court consciously expressed its view that the appeal should be dealt with by the District Judge, but based on that, the Sub Judge should have sent the case records to the District Court, whereupon the District Judge concerned should have either taken up the matter or made over the same to any other Additional District Judges under his jurisdiction and it is too late in the day to consider any other aspect so far this case is concerned. 8. Accordingly, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigual, is directed to transfer the case to the District Court for processing the matter as per law. 9. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.