Ramachandran, v. Murugesan

ORDER The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 27.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.223 of 2022 in O.S.No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Aranthangi.

¶2The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 6 in O.S.No.33 of 2022 before the Sub Court, Aranthangi. They have purchased the land in S.Nos.208/1, 208/2, 335/1, 335/2A1, 335/2A2, 335/2B, which was assigned to Nalladiyar Textile Mills by the Government of Tamil Nadu as the said mill be came defuncted and therefore an Administrator was appointed.

¶3The specific case of the petitioners is that the Sub Court, Aranthangi has erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein to reject the plaint filed in their representative capactiy espousing the cause of Villagers of Aliyanilai Village in Pudukkotai District. The specific case of the petitioners is that already another suit has been instituted by another set of persons in O.S.No.92 of 2019 for almost identical relief and therefore, the petitioners cannot be forced to defend themselves for same cause of action or similar cause of action by similar set of persons claiming to espouse the cause of the villagers in their representative capacity. It is submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the two suits arise out of different cause of action.

¶4In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the copies of the sale deeds which were executed by the Administrator for the aforesaid mill.

¶5Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and requires no interference. It is submitted that the extent of properties in the former suit is different from the extent of the property in the suit instituted by the respondents for espousing the cause of the villagers. That apart, it is submitted that the relief sought for in the earlier suit is different from the relief sought for in O.S.No.33 of 2022. It is therefore submitted that there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and liable to be dismissed.

¶6I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. I have also perused the cause of action in the respective suits.

¶7The relief sought for in the respective suits reads as under: Relief sought for in O.S.No.92 of 2019: m) thjpfspd; mikjpahd mDNghfj;jpy; cs;s jhth nrhj;Jf;fspy; gpujpthjpfNsh mth;fsJ Ml;fNsh my;yJ Kfth;fNsh vt;tpj ,ila+Wk; nra;af;$lhJ vd;W mth;fSf;F vjpuhf epue;ju jilahiz ghpfhuk; toq;fpAk;> M)

tof;fpd;

nryTj;njhif

thjpf;F fpilf;Fk;gbf;Fk;> ,) ,d;Dk; r%fk; Nfhh;l;lhuth;fSf;F crpjkhf Njhd;Wfpd;w ,ju ghpfhuq;fs; thjpfSf;F fpilf;Fk; gbf;Fk; jPh;g;Gk;> jPh;g;ghizAk; toq;f Ntz;b gpuhh;j;jpf;fg;gLfpd;wJ. Relief in O.S.No.33 of 2022: m) jhth nrhj;Jf;fspy; 1 Kjy; 6 gpujpthjpfs; kidfl;Lfshf rJhpj;J tpw;gid vJTk; nra;a $lhJ vdTk; mt;thW 1 Kjy; 6 gpujpthjpfs; jhth nrhj;Jf;fis nghWj;J Vw;gLj;Jk; kidfl;Lfs; nghWj;J vt;tpj xg;GjYk;> MtzfSk; nfhLf;f $lhJ vdTk;> epue;juj; jilahiz ghpfhuk; toq;fpAk;> M)

jhth

nryT

njhif

thjpfSf;F gpujpthjpfsplkpUe;J fpilf;Fk; gbf;Fk;> ,) ,d;Dk; r%fk; Nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fSf;F crpjkhf Njhd;Wk; ,ju ghpfhuq;fis toq;fpAk; jPh;g;Gk; kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghiz nra;a Ntz;Lkha; thjpfs; gpuhj;jpf;fpd;whh;fs;.

¶8The description of the property in the respective suit reads as under: In O.S.No.92 of 2019 GJf;Nfhl;il

khtl;lk;>

mwe;jhq;fp

jhYfh> mopahepiy fpuhkj;jpy; gioa Gy vz;fs;.208/1> 208/2 1) Gyvz;.335/1 tp];jPuzk; 4.05.0 n`f;Nlh;]; 2) Gyvz;.335/2A1 tp];jPuzk; 10.11.5 n`f;Nlh;]; 3) Gyvz;.335/2A2 tp];jPuzk; 4.05.0 n`f;Nlh;]; 4) Gyvz;.335/2B tp];jPuzk; 2.02.0 n`f;Nlh;]; Nkw;gb ehd;F Gy vz;fSf;F xNu ehd;nfy;iy. tlGuk;: fpoNky; mopahepiy jhh;rhiy njd;Guk;: fpoNky; mopahepiy to mwe;jhq;fp jhh;rhiy fPo;Guk;: cikahs; Mr;rp Nky;Guk;: GJf;Nfhl;il to mwe;jhq;fp nkapd;NuhL In O.S.No.33 of 2022 GJf;Nfhl;il

khtl;lk;

mwe;jhq;fp

jhYfh> mopahepiy fpuhkk; Mjp gioa Gy vz;.208/1> 208/2 ,uz;L Gy vz;fSk; ];jsj;jpy; xNu jhf;fhf cs;sJ ,uz;L Gy vz;fspd; nkhj;j tp];jPuzk; 85 Vf;fh; 54 nrd;l; MFk; gpd;dpl;L Nkw;gb 208/1 208/2 vd;gJ Gy vz;.335 vd cl;gphpT nra;ag;gl;L ,tw;wpd; Gjpa cl;gphpT Gy vz;fs; 335/1, 335/A2, 335/2A2, 335/2B

¶9In my view, the petitioners cannot be forced to defend their acquisition in different Courts, even if the cause of action are in respect of different survey numbers. Already another suit in O.S.No.92 of 2019 is pending before the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi. There is no merit in the rejection of the application filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. At the same time, it was open for the respondents to implead themselves in O.S.No.92 of 2019 or in the alternative, it was open to seek transfer both the cases to one Court so that there could be final determination of rights of the villagers.

¶10Considering the above, I am inclined to dispose of the present civil revision petition by directing the transfer of O.S.No.92 of 2019 pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai to the Sub Court, Aranthangi and tried along with O.S.No.33 of 2022 pending before the Sub Court, Aranthangi. It is made clear that the O.S.No.92 of 2019 will be considered as a lead case and O.S.No.33 of 2022 shall be treated as a supplementary proceedings to the main case. The Sub Court, Aranthangi is directed to dispose of the respective suits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order without getting influenced by any observations.

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

21.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The Sub Judge, Aranthangi.

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

,J.

SN

21.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.04.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.11411 of 2022 1.Ramachandran 2.Balashanmugam 3.Saruhasini 4.Rethinam 5.Mariyannan 6.Venkatesan ...Petitioners/Respondents/ Defendants 1 to 6 Vs. 1.Murugesan 2.Nagalingam 3.The District Collector, Pudukkottai District. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pudukkottai. 5.The District Revenue Officer, Office of the District Revenue Officer, Pudukkottai. 6.The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai. 7.The Block Development Officer, Office of the Block Development Officer, Aranthangi. 8.The Director, Town and Country Planning, Koyambedu, Chennai. 9.The Assistant Director, Town and Country Planning, Pudukkottai. 10.The Superintendent Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Pudukkottai. 11.The Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO), Pudukkottai. 12.The District Educational Officer, District Education Office, Pudukkottai. 13.The District Educational Officer, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai. 14.The President, Aliyanilai Panchayat, Aliyanilai Village & Post, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai. 15.The Chief Officer, Fire and Rescue Department, Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. ...Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiffs (Notice to the Respondents 3 to 15 not necessary as they are only formal parties in the present civil revision petition) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 27.10.2022 passed in I.A.No.223 of 2022 in O.S.No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Aranthangi. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Mr.T.Palanisamy For R1 & R2 : Mr.AN.Ramanathan For Mr.M.Suresh For R3 to R15 : Not necessary parties