Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2491 (MAD)

Raja Sikandar v. D. Srinivasan

2017-08-08

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, RAJIV SHAKDHER

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Shakdher, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 passed by the learned single Judge. 1.1. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the learned single Judge disposed of two applications being: A.Nos.2916 and 2917 of 2014. 2. Insofar as application No.2916 of 2014 was concerned, the respondents had sought a stay of C.S.No.358 of 2013, (which is instituted in this Court), under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') 2.1. A.No.2917 of 2014 was filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. By this application, the prayer made, was, to reject the plaint in C.S.No.358 of 2013. 3. The learned single Judge, by virtue of the impugned judgment and order, has dismissed the Application No.2916 of 2014, while allowing the other application i.e., A.No.2917 of 2014. 4. The record shows that respondents at a prior point in time had filed a suit, being O.S.No.7533 of 2010 before XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. 5. The appellant being aggrieved by the direction contained in the impugned judgment and order, whereby his plaint in C.S.No.358 of 2013 stands rejected, has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Pertinently, after some arguments counsels for both parties, agreed that the present appeal could be disposed bearing in mind, the following : (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 should be set aside, since, there are triable issues, which arise for adjudication in C.S.No.358 of 2013. (ii) The other suit being O.S.No.7533 of 2010 on the file of XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, should be withdrawn to this Court and tried along with C.S.358 of 2013 pending in this Court. 6.1. Having perused the record, we are also of the view that C.S.No.358 of 2013, raises triable issues. Since, counsels are ad-idem on this aspect, nothing further need be said, as any further observation could impact the merits of the matter. Furthermore, to facilitate adjudication of disputes, inter se parties, in our view and as agreed by counsels, O.S.No.7533 of 2010 should be withdrawn to this Court for further adjudication. 6.2. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 is set aside. The suit, being O.S.No.7533 of 2010 pending adjudication before XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, shall stand withdrawn to this Court and tried along with C.S.No.358 of 2013. 7. 6.2. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2014 is set aside. The suit, being O.S.No.7533 of 2010 pending adjudication before XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, shall stand withdrawn to this Court and tried along with C.S.No.358 of 2013. 7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.