Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3140 (MAD)

R. Ethirajan v. G. Shoba

2022-09-05

R.N.MANJULA

body2022
ORDER : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order passed in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai vide order dated 30.03.2022.) 1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred to set aside the order passed by VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 vide order dated 30.03.2022. 2. Heard Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.L.Dhamodharan, learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 3. The short facts of the case are as follows : The first respondent is the third party who filed the petitions to set aside the exparte decree dated 06.01.2018 and to implead herself as a party to the proceedings. The said petitions were allowed. Aggrieved over that, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions. 4. Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, learned counsel for the civil revision petitioners submitted that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiffs alone can choose their defendants; the second respondent is no more now; in such circumstances, no purpose is going to be served by impleading the proposed party as a party to the proceedings and thereafter to set aside the decree; since the first respondent is not connected to the suit proceedings and the proceedings is also not pending any more, the learned Trial Judge need not have allowed the petitions filed by the first respondent and hence the impugned orders should be set aside. 5. 5. Mr.L.Dhamodharan, learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the plaintiffs have filed a frivolous suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 against the second respondent and obtained an exparte decree; the second respondent is no way connected to the suit property; the first respondent/proposed party is the owner of the suit property; without impleading the owner, the plaintiffs have filed a suit against the second respondent who is in no way connected to the suit property and obtained a fraudulent decree; the suit property was settled in favour of the first respondent/proposed party's sister G.Sasikala by virtue of a settlement deed dated 27.11.2014; before executing the settlement deed, the said Sasikala along with Shoba, the first respondent/proposed party have filed a suit in O.S.No.5094 of 2013 for permanent injunction; they have also filed a petition for temporary injunction and interim order was granted in the said suit and it is still in force; the plaintiffs' daughter and sons who claim to be the owner of the suit property had filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2017 against the said Sasikala, the proposed party and the Sub-Registrar, Velacherry and the same is also pending. 5.1. 5.1. In the earlier suit filed in O.S.No.5094 of 2013, the very same revision petitioners are the defendants; after the first respondent/proposed party and her sister obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.13661 of 2013 in O.S.No.5094 of 2013, the revision petitioners have filed a petition in I.A.No.17599 of 2013 to vacate the same; after conducting enquiry, the learned Trial Judge had allowed the petition filed by the first respondent/proposed party and her sister for temporary injunction and dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioners to vacate the injunction; the said order was challenged by the revision petitioners by preferring a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.86 of 2014 and the same was allowed on 02.12.2014; thereafter, the sister of the first respondent, Sasikala challenged the same by way of filing a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.1048 of 2015; this Court disposed the said Civil Revision Petition by its order dated 14.09.2015; in the said order, the Court has recorded the submissions of both parties that they shall not alienate the property and maintain status-quo; by recording the above submission, the Civil Revision Petition was disposed and an order was passed to try to suit in O.S.No.5094 of 2013 along with the connected suit in O.S.No.6464 of 2013. 5.2. By suppressing all these facts, the revision petitioners have filed a suit for injunction against the second respondent/defendant for the very same property and obtained a fraudulent decree; on the basis of the above said decree, the revision petitioners give pressure to the police and try to encroach the suit property; hence, the first respondent was forced to file the petitions to implead herself as a party to the proceedings along with the petition to set aside the exparte decree; the learned Trial Judge had rightly allowed the petition and it does not call for any interference. 6. The first respondent/proposed party is not a stranger to the revision petitioners. Both the first respondent/proposed party and the civil revision petitioners have already filed suits against each other in respect of the very same property and the same are pending. In the meanwhile, the civil revision petitioners filed a suit against the third party by name Komalavalli and sought the relief of permanent injunction. An exparte decree was also obtained. Both the first respondent/proposed party and the civil revision petitioners have already filed suits against each other in respect of the very same property and the same are pending. In the meanwhile, the civil revision petitioners filed a suit against the third party by name Komalavalli and sought the relief of permanent injunction. An exparte decree was also obtained. The grievance of the first respondent is that the revision petitioners have filed a suit against a party who is in no way connected with the suit property, despite being aware of the earlier proceedings pending in respect of the same property between the first respondent and the plaintiffs. 7. It is true that there are suits pending between the first respondent/proposed party and her sister on one side and the civil revision petitioners on the other side. In fact, the revision petitioners have challenged the interim order granted in favour of the first respondent and her sister in another suit. In this regard, the first respondent and her sister have filed an another Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.1048 of 2015, wherein, it is observed that the parties should maintain status-quo. Despite these proceedings, the revision petitioners have chosen to file a strange suit in respect of the very same property but against a third party by name Komalavalli and obtained exparte decree against Komalavalli. It might be an attempt of the revision petitioners to create documents in respect of the suit property in their favour at the back of the aggrieved parties. Even according to the submission of the civil revision petitioners the second respondent is no more. Hence, the decree passed in the suit in O.S.No.3075 of 2017, is going to be of no use and the said decree will not bind on the first respondent or her sister who alone are said to be the interested parties and who are contesting the earlier proceedings in this regard. 8. If the revision petitioners even by remote possibility try to misuse the decree against the first respondent, she can file an obstruction petition or claim petition by stating about the acts of the civil revision petitioners in getting the fraudulent decree in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 by suppression of facts. 8. If the revision petitioners even by remote possibility try to misuse the decree against the first respondent, she can file an obstruction petition or claim petition by stating about the acts of the civil revision petitioners in getting the fraudulent decree in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 by suppression of facts. In view of the pendency of the earlier proceedings between the parties in respect of the same property, the decree passed in the suit in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 is of no consequence and it cannot serve any purpose. Hence, there is no need to re-open the suit in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 for impleading the first respondent as a party to the suit. 9. Supposing if there are no other suits pending between the first respondent and the revision petitioners in respect of the suit property, then there might be some reason to allow the interested parties to implead themselves to the party to the proceedings. Since other suits between the first respondent and the revision petitioners are pending, the suit in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 need not be revived. The decree passed in the above suit shall not be used as evidence against the first respondent/proposed party. It is further submitted that the second respondent/defendant in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 is also no more. Hence no useful purpose will be served. However, if the first respondent/proposed party apprehends that the exparte decree obtained in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 might be misused, the first respondent/proposed party or her sister can have the liberty to file a suit for declaring the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 as null and void. 10. In view of the above observations, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed and the first respondent/proposed party is at liberty to file a suit for declaring the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3075 of 2017 as null and void. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.