High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
M. Thirumal v. Minor. Sneka - C.R.P.NPD.(MD).No.585 of 2006  RD-TN 1057 (22 March 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22/03/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P.NPD.(MD).No.585 of 2006
C.R.P.NPD.(MD).No.586 of 2006
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2006
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2007
M. Thirumal ... Petitioner in both petitions
1. Minor. Sneka
2. Minor. Vivek
3. Minor Vinoth
4. Gandhi ... Respondents in
(Respondents 1 to 3 are both petitions Minors Rep.by Guardian
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 28.02.2006 made in I.A.No.425 and 488 of 2005 in O.S.No.410 of 2004 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Sitharanjandas For Respondents : Mr. K. Sekar
As the parties are the same and both the Civil Revision Petitions were filed against the orders passed in the applications in the same suit, a common order is being passed to dispose of the above Civil Revision Petitions.
2. The defendants in O.S.No.410 of 2004 is the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions.
3. The respondents herein filed O.S.No.410 of 2004 for partition, injunction and other reliefs. The respondent filed an application I.A.No.425 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C to implead the three daughters of the revision petitioner as D2 to D4 in the suit. The reasons given by them is that previously they thought that the proposed parties are not necessary parties, as they were all married before 25.03.1989, when Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 to the Hindu Succession Act came into force, but now when the defendant was examined as D.W.1, he stated that they were all married after March 1989. Therefore, they filed an application in I.A.425 of 2005 to implead the daughters of the defendant. The trial Court allowed the I.A.425 of 2005 on 28.02.2006 on condition that a sum of Rs.200/- each has to be paid to the Defendant and his three daughters, who are impleaded as D2 to D4. Aggrieved by the order dated 28,02,2006, the Civil Revision Petition No.585 of 2006 was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The respondents herein filed the another application in I.A.No.488 of 2005 in O.S.No.410 of 2004 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C to receive the additional documents, namely 15 registered sale deeds executed in favour of the 4th plaintiffs' father. It was stated by the plaintiffs that they were able to trace these documents only now and hence they filed the application to receive these 15 sale deeds as additional documents. The trial Court by order dated 28.02.2006 allowed the application in I.A.No.488 of 2005 and aggrieved by the same, the Civil Revision Petition No.586 of 2006 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are to be dismissed as no real prejudice was caused to the revision petitioner by the two orders of the trial Court and such orders are commonly passed by Civil Courts to adjudicate a dispute completely.
7. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. In a partition suit, it is necessary that all the co-owners are to be made as parties to the suit, and once it was made known that the daughters of the revision petitioner are necessary parties, an application has been filed to implead them as defendants 2 to 4 and the trial Court considering the nature of the suit and the delay involved in filing the impleading application, as carefully allowed the application by imposing cost. In such circumstances, there is no ground made out to interfere with the order of the trial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as no real prejudice was caused to the revision petitioner.
9. Similarly, the documents are generally received subject to proof and in this case, the respondents only want to mark all registered sale deeds as the same were traced only now. Therefore the trial Court has rightly allowed the application, but while doing so, the trial Court has failed to impose costs on the respondents as the additional documents were sought to be received after the defendant has let in his evidence. The Trial Court has failed to consider the inconvenience caused to the revision petitioner and has failed to compensate the same. Therefore, while upholding the order of the trial Court dated 28.02.2006 made in I.A.No.488 of 2005 in O.S.No.410 of 2004, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to the revision petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt a copy this order.
10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition No.585 of 2006 is dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition No.586 of 2006 is also dismissed with directions. No Costs. Consequently connected M.P.s are also dismissed. To
The Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.3,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.