High Court · 2025

C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :28.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024and C.M.P.No.27870 of 20241.Palaniammal 2.Nallammal3.Sellammal ...Petitioners Vs.N.Rathinam (Died)1.NallammalNachammal (Died)Vasudeva Gounder (Died)2.Pappayee Ramasamy (Died)3.K.NallusamySingaravelu (Died)4.SellammalSivagami (Died)5.KandasamyKaruppannan (Died)Nallamal (Died)6.Pandian7.Swaminathan8.PappayeePage 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 20249.Dhanalakshmi10.Velumani11.Arulmani12.Parameshwari ... RespondentsPRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decretal Order dated 25.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.399 of 2005 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.For Petitioners :Mr.K.Venkata Subban for Sarvabhauman AssociatesFor Respondents: Mr.S.Senthil ORDERThis Civil Revision Petition challenges the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif at Namakkal in I.A.No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No.399 of 2005 dated 25.06.2024. 2.The Civil Revision Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. O.S.No.399 of 2005 is a suit for partition and separate possession. Originally the suit came to be dismissed, in and by way of a judgment, dated 09.04.2007. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Court at Namakkal in A.S.No.121 of 2007. The said appeal on 26.12.2012 was Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024allowed with the following directions: ""10/thjpfs; gpujpthjpfs; jug;g[ rhl;rpak;. rhd;whtz';fs; kw;Wk; ,U jug;g[ thJiufisg; ghprPyid bra;a[k;nghJ fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mtrpa jug;gpdh;fisr; nrh;j;J. TLjy; vjph; tHf;Fiu jhf;fy; bra;ahky; jPh;g;g[k; jPh;g;ghiza[k; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;L tpl;lJ vd;gJ bjhpa tUfpwJ/ gpujpthjpfs; TLjy; vjph; tHf;Fiu jhf;fy; bra;J. TLjy; vGtpdhf;fs; tide;J. mth;fs; j';fsJ tHf;ifj; bjhlh;e;J elj;j tha;g;gspf;f ntz;Lk; vd;nw ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpwJ/ mry; KGikahd tprhuizf;Fg; gpwF jPh;khdpg;gnj jug;gpdh;fSf;F gaDs;sjhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;gjhy;. mjdog;gilapy; TLjy; vjph; tHf;Fiu jhf;fy; bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;gjhy; mry; tHf;if fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpw;nf kPl;lDg;g[if bra;ag;gl;lhy; jhd; thjpfs;. GpujpthjpfSf;F kPz;Lk; xU tha;g;gspj;J KGikahd tprhuiz bra;a cjtpahf ,Uf;Fk; vd;Wk; ,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpwJ/3.Perusal of the judgment shows it is a full remand and not a restricted one. The order of remand further points out liberty was granted to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint to include properties which had been left out and also to implead necessary parties to the suit. Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 20244.Due to the order of remand, the suit stood restored on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif at Namakkal. 5.As the suit was languishing for several years, a Civil Revision Petition was preferred to this Court in C.R.P.No.4023 of 2023. This Court directed the suit to be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order. 6.After this order had been passed, the plaintiffs moved an application for withdrawal of the suit. The grounds for withdrawal are that the suit schedule mentioned properties contain certain survey numbers over which the parties do not have a right, and certain properties over which they have a right had been left out. In addition, the plaintiffs pleaded couple of parties, who are necessary to the litigation, had been left out and therefore they sought for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Notice was issued in this application to the defendants. The defendants opposed the withdrawal stating that the suit has been pending for several years and that despite the opportunity granted by the Lower Appellate Court, the plaint had not been amended. They further pointed out to the Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024directions given by this Court in C.R.P.No.4023 of 2023 and consequently sought for dismissal of the petition. 7.The learned trial Judge, considering the affidavit and counter came to the conclusion that the petition is untenable and dismissed the same. Hence this Revision.8.I heard Mr.K.Venkata Subban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates and Mr.S.Senthil for the respondents. 9.The narration of the facts shows that the learned First Appellate Judge, had granted liberty to the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and to implead parties who are necessary to the suit. Neither the amendment nor the party inclusion petition had been filed. In the meantime, a direction had been given by this Court to dispose of the suit at an early date. Such direction was granted on account of the fact that the defendant is a senior citizen aged about 87 years. 10.If at this stage, the plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the suit and Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024file a fresh suit on the same cause of action after inclusion of new properties and newly impleaded parties, it will only amount to the plaintiffs having to go through the entire exercise which was launched in the year 2005. It will only increase the litigation stress of the parties. 11.I have to take note of the fact that the Appellate Court had remanded the suit in full. A Trial Court is not entitled to act beyond the order of remand. When liberty had been granted by the Lower Appellate Court to file implead and amendment applications, the Trial Judge, instead of dismissing the present petition, could have moulded the relief and permitted the parties to implead as well as to amend the suit schedule mentioned properties. It is, this course of action, that I propose to adopt in this Revision.12.In the light of the above discussion, the prayer for withdrawal stands rejected. The petitioners / plaintiffs shall file an application to implead the parties who are necessary to the suit as well as an application to amend the plaint to delete the properties which are unnecessary and to include which are necessary, this application shall be filed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 202413.On filing such application, the learned trial Judge shall take note of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.121 of 2007, on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal dated 20.06.2012 and allow the applications. Once the plaint is amended and newly included parties file their written statements, the Court shall ensure that the suit is disposed of within a period of four (4) months from the date on which the pleadings are complete. In case, the amendment and implead applications are not filed within a period of four (4) weeks, the learned trial Judge is requested to proceed with the suit, as it stands today. 14.The above Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly. The learned trial Judge is requested to act on a web copy of this order and not wait for a certified copy thereof. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.28.01.2024kas Index : yes / noNeutral CitationNote: Issue order copy on 30.01.2025Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. kasToPrincipal District Munsif CourtNamakkalC.R.P(PD)No.4954 of 2024and C.M.P.No.27870 of 202428.01.2024Page 8 of 8