Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3798 (MAD)

E. v. Naganathan (Died) VS P. Indrani

2018-10-12

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT C.V.Karthikeyan, J. The Review Application had been filed in S.A.No.827 of 2002. The Second Appeal arose from O.S.No.82 of 1993 which was on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. That suit was decreed. Consequently, the second defendant had filed A.S.No.154 of 1997 which came up for consideration before the learned Additional District Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The appeal was also dismissed. It must be mentioned that the suit was dismissed on 25.03.1996 and the first appeal was dismissed on 22.06.2000. Challenging the said dismissal, the second defendant filed S.A.No.827 of 2002. 2. Parallelly, the first defendant had also challenged the dismissal of the O.S.No.82 of 1993 had independently filed A.S.No.155 of 1996 which also came up for consideration before the Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. The learned judge had taken up both the first appeals namely A.S.No.154 of 1997 and A.S.No.155 of 1996 together and a common judgment was delivered on 22.06.2000 dismissing both the appeals. 3. The first defendant had challenged the said judgment by filing S.A.No.1549 of 2000. That Second Appeal came up for admission before this Court and it had been admitted and the following substantial questions of law had been framed. (a) Whether the judgment of the Court below is sustainable in law having regard to the decree passed in O.S.No.161 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai to which suit, the 1st plaintiff voluntarily got herself impleaded as party defendant? (b) Whether the Judgment of the Courts below sustainable in law as the plaintiffs claim is based on a pedigree in which there is no legal evidence at all? (c) Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below on the question of adverse possession are sustainable in law? 4. The appellant in S.A.No.827 of 2002 was the 9th respondent in S.A.No.1549 of 2000. S.A.No.827 of 2002 was adjourned time after time. The learned counsel for the appellant was not able to convince the Court that substantial questions of law exist for consideration. It must once again be mentioned that both the S.A.No.827 of 2002 and S.A.No.1549 of 2000 emanate from the very same common judgment and this Court had thought it fit to admit S.A.No.1549 of 2000 and had framed three substantial questions of law. 5. It must once again be mentioned that both the S.A.No.827 of 2002 and S.A.No.1549 of 2000 emanate from the very same common judgment and this Court had thought it fit to admit S.A.No.1549 of 2000 and had framed three substantial questions of law. 5. Viewed from the angle of the appellant, in S.A.No.827 of 2007 it is only just that he would expect the same consideration should also be extended in S.A.No.827 of 2002. However, S.A.No.827 of 2002 had been dismissed by an order holding that there are no substantial questions of law. 6. Rev. Applc.(Md) No.113 of 2011 has been filed seeking to review the said order. Among the grounds raised in this Review Application, the primary ground is that when this Court had thought it fit and proper to admit S.A.No.1549 of 2000 filed by the first defendant and substantial questions of law had also been framed, then the Second appeal filed by the second defendant should also have been admitted and the same substantial questions should also have been framed. 7. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel. It would be highly unjust if the Court were to pass two different orders with respect to the same judgment for two similarly placed separate litigants, challenging the very same judgment. 8. Consequently, the Review Application is allowed and the judgment dated 06.09.2002 in S.A.No.827 of 2002 is set aside. S.A.No.827 of 2002 is restored back to file. 9. Post S.A.No.827 of 2002 along with S.A.No.1549 of 2000 on 29.10.2018.