Sujatha v. S. Jayalakshmi

ORDER The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair order and decreetal order dated 20.04.2023 in I.A.No.09 of 2023 in O.S.No.420 of 2017 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Trichirappalli.

¶2The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.526 of 2017. The petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.420 of 2017 filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein. Both the suits pertain to the declaration of legal heirs of one late.Subramaniyan.

¶3The suit in O.S.No.420 of 2017 has been filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein before the Principal District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli. O.S.No.526 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli. Both the cases were directed to be heard together by an order of the Principal District Judge, dated 04.06.2021. The petitioner has also challenged the same before this Court in CRP(MD)No.1190 of 2021, which was also dismissed on 07.09.2021. Thus, both the suits are being tried together.

¶4The respondents 1 to 5 herein, who are the plaintiffs in prior suit in O.S.No.420 of 2017 were given right to begin and therefore the fourth respondent herein (fourth plaintiff in O.S.No.420 of 2017) was examined as P.W.1. The facts on record also indicate that in either of the suits, the respective parties have also filed their written statement. After P.W.1 was examined and cross examined, when the case was listed for further examination of plaintiff witness, an interlocutory application was filed by the respondent in I.A.No.9 of 2023 for recalling P.W.1, namely, fourth respondent herein. The application has been allowed by the Court with the following observations: "14. NkYk;> ,k;kD ghpfhuk; njhlh;ghd 4-k; gpujpthjpapd; gpwe;j Njjp njhlh;ghd Mtzq;fspd; cz;ikj;jd;ikia njspTg;gLj;Jk; nghUl;L me;j Mtzk; njhlh;ghd Nfhg;Gfis jutiog;G nra;a kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; Vw;fdNt kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L ,ilf;fhy kD vz;. I.A.No.8/2023-d;gb Nfhg;gpw;F vLf;fg;gl;L tprhuiz nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJk;> Nkw;gb kDTk; jutiog;G nra;tjw;fhd chpikapay; eilKiw rl;l tpjpfs; 75-y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;l eilKiwfis gpd;gw;wg;gltpy;iy vd;w mbg;gilapy;> Nkw;gb kD js;Sgb nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJk; tof;F Nfhg;GfspypUe;J njhpatUfpwJ. mjd;gb Nkw;gb ,uz;L tof;F ghpfhuq;fis jPh;T fhz;gjw;F 4-k; gpujpthjpapd; gpwg;G njhlh;ghd Mtzq;fs; mtrpakhdJ vd;w mbg;gilapy; thjpfs; jug;gpy; Vw;fdNt eltbf;if vLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJk; njhpatUfpwJ. mjd;gb tof;F jug;gpdh;fSf;F

,ilNaahd

gpur;ridia KOikahfTk;> mWjpahfTk; jPh;T fhz;gjw;F mth;fs; jug;G rhl;rpaj;ij Kd;dpiyg;gLj;Jtjw;F NghJkhd tha;g;G nfhLf;fg;gl Ntz;Lk; vd;w epiyepWj;jg;gl;l

rl;lf;Nfhl;ghl;bd;gb

,k;kD ghpfhuk; rl;lg;gb kDjhuUf;F fpilf;ff;$baJ vd;Nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ."

¶5It is submitted that despite two opportunities have been given and despite order has been passed in CRP(MD)No.1190 of 2021 vide order dated 07.09.2021, the respondents 1 to 5 are prolonging the disposal of the respective suits. It is further submitted that during cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the petitioner herein had obtained several admissions which demonstrate the falsity in the case of the respondents in O.S.No.420 of 2017 and therefore, this application has been filed to fill up the lacuna. It is further submitted that the Court has allowed the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.No.420 of 2017 to fill up the lacuna that were pointed out/emerged during the cross-examination of the respective witness. It is further submitted that if the respondents are allowed to further fill up the lacuna, the petitioners will be put to hardship.

¶6Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 would submit that no prejudice will be caused if P.W.1 is allowed to let in evidence in respect of the allegation in O.S.No.526 of 2017. That apart, it is submitted that in O.S.No.526 of 2017, the petitioner herein had filed two copies of birth certificate of the fourth defendant in O.S.No.420 of 2017. Therefore, I.A.No.122 of 2018 was filed and an order came to be passed on 19.04.2018. It is submitted that pursuant to an order passed in I.A.No.122 of 2018 in O.S.No.526 of 2017, the private complaint was also filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No. 955 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Trichy which has been dismissed. Subsequently, further attempts have been made to file an appeal and leave has been granted by this Court in Crl A(MD)SR.No. 4244 of 2022. Hence, it is prayed that the present civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed as no prejudice will be caused.

¶7I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4.

¶8The purpose of the trial before the Trial Court particularly for a joint trial is to elicit the truth as to whether the petitioner or the respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late.Subramaniyan. By allowing the fourth respondent herein to be further examined no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner although the proceedings are getting slightly delayed.

¶9In my view, the Court will be required to come to correct conclusion as to whether the petitioner and her son are the legal heirs of late.Subramaniyan or whether the respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late.Subramaniyan. I do not find reasons to interfere with the impugned order.

¶10The respondents should have been ordered to pay higher cost for causing delay as the litigation in both the suits are prolonging on account of the delay caused by the respondents not once but twice. Therefore, while dismissing the civil revision petition, I direct the respondents 1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- over and above to the petitioner. Subject to such compliance by the respondents, the Court shall proceed further.

¶11The present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

16.06.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichirappalli.

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

SN

16.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.6971 of 2023 Sujatha ...Petitioner/ Revision Petitioner Vs. 1.S.Jayalakshmi 2.M.Sumathi 3.B.Kala 4.R.Uma 5.R.Sudha ...Respondents 1 to 5/ Petitioners/Plaintiffs 6.The Government of Tamilnadu, Represented by its District Collector, Trichirappalli. 7.The Tahsildar, Trichirappalli West Taluk, Trichirappalli. 8.S.Surya ...Respondents 6 to 8/ Respondents 1, 2 & 4/ Defendants 1, 2 & 4 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 20.04.2023 rendered in I.A.No.09 of 2023 in O.S.No.420 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Trichirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Kathiravan For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.B.B.Ashwin Bala For R6 & R7 : Mr.S.Kameswaran Government Advocate