Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3140 (MAD)

Sri Kaliappa Charitable Trust v. Pankajam

2015-09-22

C.S.KARNAN

body2015
JUDGMENT The short facts of the case are as follows:- The respondents herein / plaintiffs 1 to 9 have filed suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore against 11 defendants / appellants herein for declaration that the defendants had obtained fraudulent decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 for declaration stating that the decree and judgment is not valid. Besides, the plaintiffs had prayed for permanent injunction. The second prayer is that the defendants 8 to 11/respondents 10 to 13 had created forged documents bearing Nos.1366/1998, 1367/1998 and 592 of 2000 as null and void and further the plaintiffs have been enjoying the schedule mentioned property for more than 20 years and as such, their civil rights will not be affected and other reliefs. 2. While the above suit was pending, the plaintiffs 1 to 7/ appellants herein had filed supplementary application in I.A.No.3140 of 2013 in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 for rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.2688 of 2013. The plaintiffs have filed counter statement and opposed the above said interlocutory application. After recording the averments of both sides, the trial Court was pleased to allow the above I.A.No.3140 of 2013 in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 and rejected the plaint. Against the order and decreetal order passed in the said Interlocutory Application, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.38 of 2014, on the file of Sub Court, Coimbatore. The learned Judge was pleased to allow the above appeal and directed the trial Court to dispose the main suit within a period of four months after granting sufficient opportunities to both parties. Against the said judgment and decree, the above appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 7 / appellants herein. 3. The highly competent counsel Mrs.P.T.Asha appearing for the appellants has filed written submission and further argued the case. The written submissions reads as follows:- " Property in dispute:- An extent of 6.46 acres of punja land in Vilankurichi Village comprised in (a) S.No.393 (an extent of 3.33 acres out of 6.33 acres on the western side), (b) S.No.364/1 (an extent of 3.08 acres out of 6.16 acres in the eastern side), (c) S.No.392 (an extent of 0.05 acres), this is the property subject matter of O.S.No.2688 of 2013 and the very same property is the schedule - I property in the suit O.S.No.3987 of 2004, II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. O.S.No.2688 of 2013 District Munsif Court, Coimbatore A. Relief claimed: 1) To declare the decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 as one obtained by fraud not enforceable and that the decree would not bind on the plaintiff or the plaintiff's right on the suit property and consequently restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff by means of an injunction. 2) To declare the sale deeds dated 12.06.1998 document Nos.1366/98, 1367/98 and 592/2000 registered by fraud as unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs or their right of enjoyment of the suit property. B. Facts in the plaint: 11.09.1962 - Arumuga Asari husband of first plaintiff purchases the suit property. 17.08.1990 - Arumuga Asari borrows Rs.2,25,000/- from the Thangavel founder of the first defendant Trust and the husband of the second defendant by mortgaging the suit property by deposit of title deeds. Signatures are obtained in blank stamp papers. 25.07.1993 - Arumuga Asari dies intestate leaving behind him surviving the plaintiffs. Plaintiff approached Thangavel to settle the loan. Thangavel informs the plaintiffs that the outstanding was Rs.15,00,000/-. Thangavel asked the plaintiff to execute the sale deed. As the plaintiff did not have the funds to settle the dues, defendants 8 to 11 promises the plaintiff to repay the dues of Thangavel and it was agreed that once defendants 8 to 11 redeem the property from Thangavel the plaintiff would execute a sale deed in respect of 1 acres of land from out of the schedule property as compensation. Meanwhile 3 sons of Arumuga Asari dies, defendants 8 to 11 failed to settle the dues of Thangavel. Plaintiffs execute a power in favour of one Arunmani to deal with the suit property. 02.09.2011 - The daughters of the plaintiff and one of the sons Balakrishnan execute a release in favour of first plaintiff. 2012 - When the power agent tries to settle the suit property power agent comes to know about the decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 confirmed in A.S.No.107/2007 and S.A.No.1052 of 2009. These decrees are obtained by fraud and threfore, sale in favour of defendants 1 to 7 is not binding on the plaintiff. The children of Arumugha Asari did not receive any summons in the said suit O.S.No.3987 of 2004 and they had also not nominated any person to represent them in the above suit. These decrees are obtained by fraud and threfore, sale in favour of defendants 1 to 7 is not binding on the plaintiff. The children of Arumugha Asari did not receive any summons in the said suit O.S.No.3987 of 2004 and they had also not nominated any person to represent them in the above suit. Plaintiffs plead that they are in possession for over 20 years and even after the decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 they continue to be in possession of the suit property. Therefore, suit has been filed. I.A.No.3140 of 2014 filed by defendants 1 to 7: This I.A. is filed to reject the plaint in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 on the ground that the title of the defendants 1 to 7 to the suit property had been sent to rest by the decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 which ultimately attained finality by the judgment and decree in S.A.No.1052 of 2009. That the sale in favour of defendants 8 to 11 has been declared as null and void. That the decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 has merged into the judgment and decree in S.A.No.1052 of 2009 and therefore, setting aside only the decree in the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 without questioning the judgment and decree in the First Appeal and Second Appeal cannot be maintained. That the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 was decreed on 30.10.2006 and the sale should have been questioned by 30.10.2009. Hence, suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 is barred by limitation. Validity of the sale in favour of defendants 8 to 11 already decided therefore the suit is hit by resjudicata. Suit property is no longer the property of the plaintiff in view of the settlement deed dated 25.07.1993 in favour of the first defendant Trust and the sale in faovur of the defendants 4 and 5 on 13.05.1997. These transfers had been effected by Thangavel by using the power of attorney dated 24.04.1992. These transactions have not been questioned. Court fees paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act instead of Section 40. Counter filed by the plaintiffs: The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is denied. Decree obtained in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 by fraud. These transactions have not been questioned. Court fees paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act instead of Section 40. Counter filed by the plaintiffs: The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is denied. Decree obtained in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 by fraud. Plaintiffs have contested the earlier suit as well as the appeal at any point of time and that some without the knowledge of the plaintiffs had contested the case. Defendants 1 to 7 are not in possession of the suit property and the same continues to vest with the plaintiffs. Trial Court rejects the plaint filed by the plaintiffs vide order dated 06.03.2014 on the grounds that suit is abuse of process of law, barred by limitation and resjudicata. The trial Court observes that in the earlier suit the father of plaintiffs 3 and 4, one Shanmugham had examined himself as D.W.1 and who had admitted to the execution of the agreement of sale dated 17.08.1990. This decree was challenged by Arumugha Asari and his children right up to the High Court. A.S.No.38/2014 filed challenging the order in I.A.No.3140 of 2014:- Appellate Court set aside the order passed in I.A. primarily on the ground that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which has to be tested at the trial. The issue as to whether the plaintiffs had not received summons in the earlier suit or that they had not nominated any advocate to appear and contest the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 is an issue which has to be proved by trial by examining documents. The appellate Court after setting aside the order in I.A.No.3240 of 2014 has now directed the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of four months. Grounds of challenge to the judgment and decree in A.S.No.38 of 2014:- (a) The plaintiffs ought to have filed a review against the judgment and decree in S.A.No.1052 of 2009 and without setting aside this judgment and decree, the suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 is not maintainable. (b) Without resorting to the above the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. (c) The suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 was decreed in the year 2006 and the present suit is filed in the year 2013 which is clearly barred by limitation. (b) Without resorting to the above the present suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. (c) The suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 was decreed in the year 2006 and the present suit is filed in the year 2013 which is clearly barred by limitation. (d) Even according to the plaint in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 the plaintiffs got the knowledge of the earlier suit in the month of May 2012, however the suit is filed in the month of September 2013. (e) Ex.R19 shows that the defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 5 to 10 had on 18.04.2005 entrusted vakalat to one K.Rajeswari, advocate who had filed the same into Court on 20.04.2006. (f) A reading of the judgment in the earlier suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 and the subsequent appeals would clearly denote that the defendants therein which includes the plaintiffs herein have filed a detailed written statement and have also fully contested the suit. The decree obtained is not an exparte decree. It is also seen that the plaintiffs 7 to 9 in the present suit have been impleaded as the legal-heirs of the deceased 4th defendant in the earlier suit by way of an interlocutory application and on their being impleaded they have separately filed a written statement and therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that they had no knowledge of the above proceedings. Shanmugham whose legal-heirs are plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the present suit and Shanmughasundaram, the 10th defendant have adduced evidence. (g) All the defendants in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 have not joined in the suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 and therefore, in so far as these defendants are concerned the judgment and decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 has attained finality. Only defendants 1, 15 to 17 in the earlier suit and the legal-heirs of defendants 2 to 4 have filed the present suit. Defendants 11 to 14 in the earlier suit who are defendants 8 to 11 in the suit alone had contested the earlier suit right upto the High Court in S.A.No.1052 of 2009. Only defendants 1, 15 to 17 in the earlier suit and the legal-heirs of defendants 2 to 4 have filed the present suit. Defendants 11 to 14 in the earlier suit who are defendants 8 to 11 in the suit alone had contested the earlier suit right upto the High Court in S.A.No.1052 of 2009. (h) Therefore, the earlier decree has not been obtained by fraud but only after contest and the plaintiffs herein who only constitute some of the defendants are attempting to set-aside that decree which has not been challenged by the others on a flimsy ground that the summons has not been served on them and that they had not entrusted vakalat to anyone. This factum is not supported by any document. (i) The present suit is therefore a sheer abuse of process of law and the plaintiffs who were very much aware of the earlier proceedings have come forward with the present suit nearly 7 years after the earlier decree. The present suit is therefore hit by the bar of limitation, res judicata and is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. (j) Respondents 1 to 9 herein have come forward with the suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 putting forward a contention that they were totally unaware about the proceedings in the earlier suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 and the subsequent appeals and that they had not contested these proceedings and that the decree had been obtained behind their back. (k) In the plaint in O.S.No.2688 of 203 they have contended that the decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 had been obtained by the appellants herein with the connivance of one Arumugam, the brother of first respondent herein. In the counter filed by respondents 1 to 9 in I.A.No.3140 of 2013 they have developed upon the statement made by them in their plaint, by stating that in the year 2003 they had shifted from the address found in the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004. Therefore, the respondents have clearly admitted that upto the year 2003 they had resided in the address as shown in the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004. (l) The suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 was filed on 18.07.1998 and was numbered as O.S.No.630 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. Therefore, the respondents have clearly admitted that upto the year 2003 they had resided in the address as shown in the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004. (l) The suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 was filed on 18.07.1998 and was numbered as O.S.No.630 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. Thereafter, on account of the revision in pecuniary jurisdiction the suit was transfered to the file of the IInd Additional District Court, Coimbatore and renumbered as O.S.No.3987 of 2004. Therefore, the address as shown in O.S.No.630 of 1998 was the very same address in which the first respondent and her children were residing. The vakalat has been entrusted to one Mr.Sengottuvel on 31.07.1998 by the first respondent and all her children i.e, her 4 sons and 5 daughters. The first respondent and her children, barring her daughter Shanthamani, had filed a written statement. The first respondent's son Shanmugam, whose legal-heirs are respondents 2 to 4 in the above appeal, had adduced evidence as D.W.1. Therefore, the contention of the respondents 1 to 9 is absolutely false." 4. The highly competent counsel Mrs.P.T.Asha appearing for the appellants submits that the suit filed by the respondents is barred by the principle of resjudicata since the same issue had already been discussed and decided in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the defendants had filed appeal suit in A.S.No.107 of 2007, on the file of Ist Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, and challenged the decree and judgment passed in favour of the plaintiff. The same was confirmed by the first appellate Court. Against the concurrent decree and judgments passed by the Courts below, the defendants had filed second appeal before this Court. This Court dismissed the second appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the Courts below. All the 3 Courts have framed necessary issues and decided the case on merits by the trial Court as well as the appellate Courts. As such, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs / respondents in O.S.No.2688 of 2013, on the file of the Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore is barred by the principle of resjudicata as per Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code since in the said suit, they are the same parties, same cause of action, same properties, same civil forum and same prayer. Therefore, the appellants herein had filed an additional application in I.A.No.3140 of 2013 in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 for rejection of the plaint in limine. In the said application, the entire facts have been narrated. However, the respondents herein had filed counter statement and resisted the said supplementary application. Subsequently, the learned trial Court Judge, after hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the averments of both sides and after considering the exhibits marked by the respondents, allowed the interlocutory application and rejected the plaint in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Court, Coimbatore, on merits. 5. The highly competent counsel appearing for the appellants further submits that the respondents had filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.38 of 2014 , on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. The same was allowed by the learned appellate Judge. The learned appellate Judge failed to consider the fact that the present suit filed by the respondents 1 to 9 herein is barred by limitation as the suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 was decreed on 30.10.2006 and the present suit is filed in the year 2013 after limitation period. Further, the present suit is against the findings given by the Hon'ble Top Court of the State in second appeal No.1052 of 2009. As such, the first appellate Court's judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.38 of 2014, runs against the above findings of the High Court. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.38 of 2014 and confirm the order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.3140 of 2013 in O.S.No.2688 of 2013, dated 06.03.2014. 6. The highly competent senior counsel Mr.B.Kumar appearing for the first respondent submits that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 are legal-representatives of Late Arumuga Achari, who owned land to an extent of 6.46 acres in the Village near Coimbatore and he is not a literate person. The said Arumuga Achari had obtained loan for a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs from one Thangavelu and at the time of receiving loan, the said Thangavelu had obtained signature in number of plain papers. They, in turn, manipulated the said plain stamped papers and conveyed the entire property to them. The said Arumuga Achari had obtained loan for a sum of Rs.2.25 lakhs from one Thangavelu and at the time of receiving loan, the said Thangavelu had obtained signature in number of plain papers. They, in turn, manipulated the said plain stamped papers and conveyed the entire property to them. Knowing the same, one Mrs.Nagammal and others promised to the legal-heirs of Late Arumuga Achari that they will release them from the clutches of Thangavelu after paying the loan amount and obtained their signatures on stamped blank papers from them and they in turn manipulated them to make as though the entire property was conveyed to them. These two parties have not added Arumuga Achari as necessary party in the earlier suit, while he was alive. Therefore, the forged documents are not sustainable under law. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 to set-aside the created forged documents bearing No.1366 of 1998, 1367 of 1993 and 592 of 2000. Further, the plaintiffs are in physical possession continuously without third party's interference. The defendants have filed O.S.No.3987 of 2004 and obtained decree fraudulently. Therefore, the present suit has been filed. Further, in the said suit, several issues have to be decided viz., (i) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment? (ii) Whether the documents have been fraudulently created over the said property? One of the documents viz., the gift settlement deed bearing registration No.1367 of 1993 has been registered on 15.09.1993. As such, after the lapse of 20 years, whether the defendants can claim the suit properties from the plaintiffs on the strength of forged documents? Further, the defendants have filed interlocutory application in I.A.No.3140 of 2013 in the said suit for rejection of plaint. 7. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the first respondent further submits that in the earlier suit filed by 6 persons, against the 17 defendants in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, wherein Sri Kaliappa Charitable Trust have been added as second plaintiff. But, the present suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 has been filed by 9 plaintiffs against 11 defendants. As such, the parties are not one and the same. Further, the cause of action is different among the two suits. The earlier suit has challenged two documents, but in the present suit, three documents have been challenged. 8. But, the present suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 has been filed by 9 plaintiffs against 11 defendants. As such, the parties are not one and the same. Further, the cause of action is different among the two suits. The earlier suit has challenged two documents, but in the present suit, three documents have been challenged. 8. The highly competent senior counsel appearing for the first respondent further submits that it is an admitted fact that the respondents are in possession as of now and this clearly proves that patta had been issued in the name of the respondents. Further, the encumbrance certificate also stands in the name of the respondents. Therefore, the findings given by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore in O.S.No.3987 of 2004, dated 30.10.2006 is not executable since the respondents are in possession. Therefore, a trial is necessary to sort out all the issues and other disputes. If trial is conducted in the present suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013, neither parties will be prejudiced. The first appellate Court, had observed that in the said suit, different issues have arisen and therefore, trial is necessary. Hence, the trial Court's order and decreetal order had been set-aside and the trial Court was directed to dispose the case on merits after recording oral evidence of both parties and on perusing the exhibits of both parties. The highly competent senior counsel has cited the following judgment in support of his contentions:- S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu V. Jagannath reported in AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 853 "Civil P.C.(5 of 1980), S.2(2) - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.44, Proceeding in Court - Fraud by litigant - Withholding of vital document relevant to litigation - It is fraud on Court - Guilty party is liable to be thrown out of any stage - Litigant obtaining preliminary decree for partition of property - Not mentioning at trial as to his having executed before filing of suit release deed in respect of property in favour of his employer - Decree is vitiated by fraud." 9. The highly competent counsel Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar appearing for the respondents 2 to 9 submits that the schedule mentioned property to an extent of 6.41 acres comprised in S.F.Nos.393/1 and 394/1 situated at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District, originally belonged to Arumuga Achari, who had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed bearing No.4564 of 1960. The highly competent counsel Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar appearing for the respondents 2 to 9 submits that the schedule mentioned property to an extent of 6.41 acres comprised in S.F.Nos.393/1 and 394/1 situated at Kalapatti Village, Coimbatore District, originally belonged to Arumuga Achari, who had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed bearing No.4564 of 1960. The said Arumuga Achari had expired on 25.07.1993. After his death, the plaintiffs have succeeded the property as legal-heirs of the Late Arumuga Achari and his two sons. Further, the revenue records indicate that the plaintiffs have been recorded as owners. The defendants submit that they have purchased the property from the legal-heirs of Arumuga Achari. Actually, the said Arumuga Achari had availed loan from one THangavelu to the tune of Rs.2.25 lakhs in the year 1990, after signing stamped blank papers. Subsequently, the same was utilized for preparing sale agreement and power of attorney. These documents are forged. The plaintiffs are not aware of the said fabricated documents. Therefore, a trial is absolutely necessary to determine the veracity of the sale deeds. The plaintiffs have approached Mr.Thangavelu for settlement of loan amount and then they had come to know that they had cheated the said Arumuga Achari. Therefore, the present suit has been initiated on the basis of present cause of action. Further, the plaintiffs/respondents are physical possession and enjoying the same. The fraudulent decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.3987 of 2004, dated 30.10.2006 had not been operated. The highly competent counsel further submits that in the said suit, several issues have to be decided. Therefore, a trial is absolutely necessary, especially, the main case regarding the physical possession and enjoyment. The highly competent counsel has cited the following judgment in support of his contentions:- Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat v. Inder Kumar reported in 2015 SCC 751 A. Civil Procedure Code - Or. 7 R. 11- Whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground that it is barred by the law of limitation - Since, question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law - Mere ex facie reading of the plaint it could not be held that the suit was barred by the time - Held, a plaint cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of issue on limitation and taking evidence. B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 11 - Res judicata - When applicable - A suit was decreed for specific performance of agreement to sell in respect of a land - Later, a suit for declaration was filed by a society, which was not party to first suit, for declaring the judgment and decree passed in earlier suit and the subsequent sale deed and mutation as illegal, null and void with the consequential relief of permanent injunction - If maintainable - Since, allegations in the plaint in the later suit are absolutely different - There was an asseveration of fraud and collusion and an assertion that in the earlier suit a decree came to be passed because of fraud and collusion - Held, in such a case, the plea pf res judicata not applicable - There should have been a trial with regard to all the issues framed." 10. From the above discussions, this Court is of the view that (i) In the present suit some other new parties are added as plaintiffs and defendants compared with the earlier suit in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 and cause of action is also different. (ii) Defendants had obtained decree in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 stating that they are in physical possession of the suit property, but now the plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that they are in physical possession and enjoyment. Therefore, a contradiction has arisen in the instant case and as such, this could only be duly sorted out through a comprehensive trial. (iii) If a trial is conducted in the present suit neither party will be prejudiced. The trial Court has allowed the interlocutory application and rejected the plaint in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 after verifying the exhibits, but not recording evidence from both sides. The plaintiffs have also annexed 16 documents along with the plaint and therefore a detailed discussion is of paramount importance, hence, a trial is required. (iv) In the instant case an Advocate Commissioner is required to determine the veracity of who is in physical possession. (v) The appellants / defendants have stated in the plaint in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 stating that the subject matter of the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Hence, the appellants herein had approached this Court by way of writ petition and this Court disposed the said writ petition with liberty to the appellant to approach the State Government. (v) The appellants / defendants have stated in the plaint in O.S.No.3987 of 2004 stating that the subject matter of the property belongs to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Hence, the appellants herein had approached this Court by way of writ petition and this Court disposed the said writ petition with liberty to the appellant to approach the State Government. Accordingly the appellants made a representation to the State Government and secured the property. Therefore, a trial is necessary to determine the ownership of the said property. 11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the typed-set of papers and this Court's view listed as (i) to (v), the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.38 of 2014, on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore, dated 05.01.2015 is confirmed. Further, the first appellate Court had granted four months time to dispose the above suit in O.S.No.2688 of 2013 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. This period will be effective from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to dispose the said suit on merits without being influenced by the discussions of this Court, after giving sufficient opportunities to the parties. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.