has to be interpreted ejusdem generis with the previous clauses. See, Chajju Ram v. Neki
Case Details
Acts & Sections
C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.09.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.2380 of 2024ManoharanS/o late Gopal..Petitioner-vs-1. Kantha, W/o Samuel2. Kumudha, W/o Elumalai3. Perumal, S/o late Arumugam4. Elumalai, S/o late Arumugam5. Saraswathi, W/o Balan6. Ebher Muralidharan, S/o late Balan7. Kiresha, W/o Arunodayan8. Ruban, S/o late Samuel9. Ranjith Kumar, S/o late Samuel10.Jebakar, S/o late Samuel11.Loganathan, S/o late Gopal12.Mrs.Jayalakshmi, W/o Paul Edward13.Vasantha, W/o Mariasusai14.Dhanasekaran, S/o late Gopal15.Viviyan, W/o late Raja16.Minor Reny rep.by mother Viviyan17.Minor Joe rep.by mother Viviyan18.Ananthi, W/o Pushpalingam19.Ramachandran, S/o late Gopal20.Kanakaraj, S/o late Chakrapani21.Chitra, D/o late Chakrapani22.Subhatra, D/o late Chakrapani1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 202423.Lakshmi, D/o late Chakrapani24.Munusamy, S/o late Elumalai25.Santhalingam, S/o Elumalai26.Indira, D/o Elumalai27.Arumugam, S/o Elumalai28.Srinivasan, S/o Subramanian29.Lalitha, W/o Chinnakannu30.Subramanian, S/o Nachimuthu31.Ramesh Bhushnam, S/o late Dhanabhushnam32.Viji, D/o late Dhanabhushnam33.Uma, D/o late Dhanabhushnam34.Latha, D/o late Dhanabhushnam .. Respondents Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 by the learned District Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram. For Petitioner:: Mr.VKR.BalakrishnanFor Respondents:: Mr.K.Premkumar for R1 to R6No appearance for R9, R19 & R31Service awaited on other respondents ORDERThis civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 dated 16.02.2024. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 20242. O.S.No.82 of 2014 is a suit filed for the following reliefs:-(i)a declaration declaring that the impugned family arrangement deed dated 22.06.1959 in document No.2228/1959 on the file of S.R.O.Pallavaram executed by Late Munusamy S/o Poongon in favour of Late Gopal and legal heirs of Annalammal in respect of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties is illegal, null and void and ab-initio;(ii)a declaration declaring that the impugned release deed dated 08.04.1987 in document No.1470/1987 on the file of S.R.O.Tambaram executed by defendants 1 and 25 in favour of ninth defendant in respect of 'C' Schedule property is illegal, null and void ab-initio;(iii)a declaration declaring that the impugned sale deed dated 03.05.1993 in document No.4832/1993 on the file of S.R.O.Tambaram executed by Murugammal, defendants 6 to 10 and Late Rajan and defendants 14 and 15 in favour of defendant No.25 in respect of 'D' Schedule property is illegal, null and void ab-initio;(iv)a preliminary decree of partition dividing into 90 (ninety) equal shares of suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule property and allot a 30 (thirty) equal shares to the plaintiffs jointly by metes and bounds and appointing advocate commissioner for division of suit property and pass the final decree(v)to award costs.3. The claim of the plaintiffs is that 'A' and 'B' schedule mentioned properties are the ancestral properties which belong to two persons, namely, Gopal and Munusamy. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024They would plead that Gopal, Munusamy and one Arumugam, being co-parceners, were entitled to one third share each. On the death of Munusamy on 07.02.1963, the properties devolved on his legal heirs. Arumugam, being a legal heir of Munusamy, got one fifth of the one third share that was devolved on his death. The said Arumugam claimed that he is entitled to 6/15th share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Accordingly, on 06.10.1979, Arumugam died. The plaintiffs, 25th defendant and one Balan, who are the legal representatives of Arumugam, succeeded to the estate on his death. Since the document dated 22.06.1959 was being projected as dividing the rights of the plaintiffs, they have brought forth the suit for the above said reliefs.4. On being served with the summons, the ninth defendant took out an application for rejection of plaint and the plaint was also rejected on 03.09.2015 holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Against the said order, a regular appeal was preferred to this Court in A.S.No.299 of 2016. The appeal was allowed on 08.02.2019 giving a direction to the trial Court to treat the plea of limitation as an issue along with other issues in the suit. There was a further direction to dispose of the suit within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. After this round of rejection of plaint was over, the tenth defendant filed a fresh 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024application in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in the said suit. Yet again, the plea of limitation was sought to be pressed before the Court & rejection of plaint was sought for. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the judgment in A.S.No.299 of 2016 is binding on the tenth defendant, who claims the same right as the ninth defendant. Therefore, he dismissed the application. No revision was preferred as against that order. Thereafter, an application seems to have been filed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to review the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022. The application was dismissed. Hence, this revision.6. Heard Mr.VKR.Balakrishnan for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.K.Premkumar for the respondents 1 to 6. 7. The condition precedent to review an order is that there should exist an error apparent on the face of the record. In case, no such error exists, the Court should not entertain an application for review. Prior to the review in I.A.No.6 of 2022, the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the Division Bench judgment passed in A.S.No.299 of 2016 is binding on the parties and hence he dismissed the said petition. The fact that a new plea is being raised does not mean that the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court would not be binding on the parties. The tenth defendant, who filed the application for rejection of plaint, has not challenged the order of 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024dismissal. Instead, he yet again moved the very same Court without pointing out what is the error apparent on the face of the record. 8. When this was pointed out to Mr.Balakrishnan, he would state that in terms of Order XLI, Rule 1, an application for review can be maintained for “any other sufficient cause”. The expression “any other sufficient cause” has to be interpreted ejusdem generis with the previous clauses. See, Chajju Ram v. Neki, (1922) L.R.49 I.A.144. It is not an independent stand alone provision. The learned trial Judge has given clear and cogent reasons why he is not reviewing the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022 dated 23.02.2023. I am not in a position to take an exception to the said order. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.9. At this stage, Mr.Balakrishnan would point out that he has moved a review application to review the order in A.S.No.299 of 2016. The dismissal of this revision will not stand in the way of Mr.Balakrishnan to prosecute the said review application. 10. The learned District Judge is reminded that the Division Bench of this Court had given a direction to dispose of the suit within nine months. Despite the fact that several nine months have lapsed, he has still not disposed of the suit. The learned 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024District Judge shall strictly adhere to the direction given by the Division Bench and fast track the suit, as the parties have been agitating from 2014. A suit that is pending for ten years is sufficient to trigger the Court to expedite the suit at all stages. Index: yes/no03.09.2024Neutral citation : yes/no ssTo1. The District Judge District Court No.II Kancheepuram7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.ss C.R.P.No.2380 of 202403.09.20248/8
C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.09.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.2380 of 2024ManoharanS/o late Gopal..Petitioner-vs-1. Kantha, W/o Samuel2. Kumudha, W/o Elumalai3. Perumal, S/o late Arumugam4. Elumalai, S/o late Arumugam5. Saraswathi, W/o Balan6. Ebher Muralidharan, S/o late Balan7. Kiresha, W/o Arunodayan8. Ruban, S/o late Samuel9. Ranjith Kumar, S/o late Samuel10.Jebakar, S/o late Samuel11.Loganathan, S/o late Gopal12.Mrs.Jayalakshmi, W/o Paul Edward13.Vasantha, W/o Mariasusai14.Dhanasekaran, S/o late Gopal15.Viviyan, W/o late Raja16.Minor Reny rep.by mother Viviyan17.Minor Joe rep.by mother Viviyan18.Ananthi, W/o Pushpalingam19.Ramachandran, S/o late Gopal20.Kanakaraj, S/o late Chakrapani21.Chitra, D/o late Chakrapani22.Subhatra, D/o late Chakrapani1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 202423.Lakshmi, D/o late Chakrapani24.Munusamy, S/o late Elumalai25.Santhalingam, S/o Elumalai26.Indira, D/o Elumalai27.Arumugam, S/o Elumalai28.Srinivasan, S/o Subramanian29.Lalitha, W/o Chinnakannu30.Subramanian, S/o Nachimuthu31.Ramesh Bhushnam, S/o late Dhanabhushnam32.Viji, D/o late Dhanabhushnam33.Uma, D/o late Dhanabhushnam34.Latha, D/o late Dhanabhushnam .. Respondents Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 by the learned District Judge, District Court No.2, Kancheepuram. For Petitioner:: Mr.VKR.BalakrishnanFor Respondents:: Mr.K.Premkumar for R1 to R6No appearance for R9, R19 & R31Service awaited on other respondents ORDERThis civil revision petition arises against the order passed by the learned District Judge, District Court No.II, Kancheepuram in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.82 of 2014 dated 16.02.2024. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 20242. O.S.No.82 of 2014 is a suit filed for the following reliefs:-(i)a declaration declaring that the impugned family arrangement deed dated 22.06.1959 in document No.2228/1959 on the file of S.R.O.Pallavaram executed by Late Munusamy S/o Poongon in favour of Late Gopal and legal heirs of Annalammal in respect of 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties is illegal, null and void and ab-initio;(ii)a declaration declaring that the impugned release deed dated 08.04.1987 in document No.1470/1987 on the file of S.R.O.Tambaram executed by defendants 1 and 25 in favour of ninth defendant in respect of 'C' Schedule property is illegal, null and void ab-initio;(iii)a declaration declaring that the impugned sale deed dated 03.05.1993 in document No.4832/1993 on the file of S.R.O.Tambaram executed by Murugammal, defendants 6 to 10 and Late Rajan and defendants 14 and 15 in favour of defendant No.25 in respect of 'D' Schedule property is illegal, null and void ab-initio;(iv)a preliminary decree of partition dividing into 90 (ninety) equal shares of suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule property and allot a 30 (thirty) equal shares to the plaintiffs jointly by metes and bounds and appointing advocate commissioner for division of suit property and pass the final decree(v)to award costs.3. The claim of the plaintiffs is that 'A' and 'B' schedule mentioned properties are the ancestral properties which belong to two persons, namely, Gopal and Munusamy. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024They would plead that Gopal, Munusamy and one Arumugam, being co-parceners, were entitled to one third share each. On the death of Munusamy on 07.02.1963, the properties devolved on his legal heirs. Arumugam, being a legal heir of Munusamy, got one fifth of the one third share that was devolved on his death. The said Arumugam claimed that he is entitled to 6/15th share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Accordingly, on 06.10.1979, Arumugam died. The plaintiffs, 25th defendant and one Balan, who are the legal representatives of Arumugam, succeeded to the estate on his death. Since the document dated 22.06.1959 was being projected as dividing the rights of the plaintiffs, they have brought forth the suit for the above said reliefs.4. On being served with the summons, the ninth defendant took out an application for rejection of plaint and the plaint was also rejected on 03.09.2015 holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Against the said order, a regular appeal was preferred to this Court in A.S.No.299 of 2016. The appeal was allowed on 08.02.2019 giving a direction to the trial Court to treat the plea of limitation as an issue along with other issues in the suit. There was a further direction to dispose of the suit within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. After this round of rejection of plaint was over, the tenth defendant filed a fresh 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024application in I.A.No.6 of 2022 in the said suit. Yet again, the plea of limitation was sought to be pressed before the Court & rejection of plaint was sought for. The learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the judgment in A.S.No.299 of 2016 is binding on the tenth defendant, who claims the same right as the ninth defendant. Therefore, he dismissed the application. No revision was preferred as against that order. Thereafter, an application seems to have been filed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to review the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022. The application was dismissed. Hence, this revision.6. Heard Mr.VKR.Balakrishnan for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.K.Premkumar for the respondents 1 to 6. 7. The condition precedent to review an order is that there should exist an error apparent on the face of the record. In case, no such error exists, the Court should not entertain an application for review. Prior to the review in I.A.No.6 of 2022, the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the Division Bench judgment passed in A.S.No.299 of 2016 is binding on the parties and hence he dismissed the said petition. The fact that a new plea is being raised does not mean that the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court would not be binding on the parties. The tenth defendant, who filed the application for rejection of plaint, has not challenged the order of 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024dismissal. Instead, he yet again moved the very same Court without pointing out what is the error apparent on the face of the record. 8. When this was pointed out to Mr.Balakrishnan, he would state that in terms of Order XLI, Rule 1, an application for review can be maintained for “any other sufficient cause”. The expression “any other sufficient cause” has to be interpreted ejusdem generis with the previous clauses. See, Chajju Ram v. Neki, (1922) L.R.49 I.A.144. It is not an independent stand alone provision. The learned trial Judge has given clear and cogent reasons why he is not reviewing the order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2022 dated 23.02.2023. I am not in a position to take an exception to the said order. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.9. At this stage, Mr.Balakrishnan would point out that he has moved a review application to review the order in A.S.No.299 of 2016. The dismissal of this revision will not stand in the way of Mr.Balakrishnan to prosecute the said review application. 10. The learned District Judge is reminded that the Division Bench of this Court had given a direction to dispose of the suit within nine months. Despite the fact that several nine months have lapsed, he has still not disposed of the suit. The learned 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024District Judge shall strictly adhere to the direction given by the Division Bench and fast track the suit, as the parties have been agitating from 2014. A suit that is pending for ten years is sufficient to trigger the Court to expedite the suit at all stages. Index: yes/no03.09.2024Neutral citation : yes/no ssTo1. The District Judge District Court No.II Kancheepuram7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2380 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.ss C.R.P.No.2380 of 202403.09.20248/8