Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 750 (MAD)

Bhavani v. Jothimani

2013-02-04

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The petitioners filed a Suit for Partition against the respondents herein before the District Court, Dindigul. The same was taken on file as O.S.No.119 of 2009. The first respondent herein, who is the first defendant appeared in the suit and also filed written statement. 2. The second defendant did not contest the suit and he has been set exported and the suit was ripe for trial. While so, the suit was transferred to the Subordinate Court (Camp Court), Kodaikanal and renumbered as O.S.No.241 of 2010 due to the modification of the pecuniary jurisdiction. On 04.11.2011, issues were also framed. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the matter is not taken up for trial. Hence, they have filed this revision petition seeking for direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within a stipulated period. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no progress in the suit and the matter is adjourned without any progress and without any reasons. 6. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are too aged and therefore, the petitioners shall be given priority in the hearing. Furthermore, there is no statistics as to the pendency of the case in the Trial Court. It is stated that the matter is heard in Camp Court. 7. More importantly, the Petitioners could have very well moved application under Rule 28(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for advancement of hearing. Rule 28(2) of Civil Rules of Practice is extracted herein: 28(2) Advancement of Hearing:- Any party, who desires that the hearing may be advanced, may apply therefore by interlocutory application of which notice shall be given to the other party. But, the Petitioners have not done so. In that event, the Trial Court could have passed an order after hearing the other side. 8. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. The dismissal of the revision petition does not preclude the petitioners from filing appropriate application as stated above. No costs.