Dindigul Taluk National Cotton Mills, v. Soundararajan

ORDER The petitioner is the defendant before the trial Court in O.S.No. 1187 of 2004.

¶2The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul in I.A.No.628 of 2022 in O.S.No.1187 of 2004 vide order, dated 09.11.2022 has filed the present Civil Revision petition. By the impugned order, the Principal District Munsif Court, Dindigul has rejected I.A.No.628 of 2022 in O.S.No.1187 of 2007 filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of C.P.C., to stay the aforesaid suit filed by the respondents. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: "7.vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; ,e;j tof;fhdJ jPh;g;gpw;fhf xj;jp itf;fg;gl;Lss epiyapy; kDjhuh; fle;j 18 Mz;Lfshf tof;fpid fhyjhkjg;gLj;jp miyf;fopg;gjhf> Ml;Nrgiz njhptpj;Js;shh;. NkYk;> ,e;j tof;fpy; vjph;kDjhuhpd; jhahh; ngw;w Vl;L flid nrYj;jp nrhj;ij kPl;gjw;F ghpfhuk; Nfl;Ls;sjhfTk;> mjdhy; tof;F tprhuizia jil nra;af;$lhJ

vd

Ml;Nrgpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ Vw;fj;jf;fjhfNt cs;sJ. kDjhuh; jug;gpy; khz;GkpF cr;r ePjpkd;wj;jpy; m.t.vz;.310/2004 Nky; KiwapL epYitapy; cs;sjhf njhptpj;Js;s epiyapy;> ,e;j tof;fpidAk; mj;Jld; Fwpg;gpl;L jil cj;juT ngw;W ,Ue;jpUf;fyhk;. Nkw;fz;l kDjhuh; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s khz;GkpF cr;rePjpkd;w Nky;KiwaPl;L cj;juit ftdkhf ghprPyid nra;j gl;rj;jpy; mjpy; Nky; KiwaPl;L vz;.41/2008 tof;if nghWj;jkl;bYk; jhd; jil cj;juT gpwg;gpj;Js;sJ vd;gJ njhpatUfpwJ. vdNt> ,e;j tof;if nghWj;J khz;GkpF cr;rePjpkd;wj;jpNyh

cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpNyh

vt;tpj jilAk; ,y;yhj epiyapy; kDjhuh; Nfl;Ls;s ghpfhukhdJ kDjhuUf;F fpilf;ff;$bajhf ,y;iy vd jPh;khdpf;fg;gLfpwJ. ,Wjpahf. ,k;kD vjph;kDjhuhpd; nryTj; njhifAld; js;Sgb nra;J cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ."

¶3I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4The specific case of the petitioner is that the first respondent's mother has mortgaged the property in the year 1989 on 21.02.1989 and that the possession was given to the petitioner and sale agreement was executed by the first respondent's mother on 05.06.1996.

¶5As the first respondent's mother did not come over to sell the property, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.310 of 2004 for specific performance against the first respondent's mother before the Fast Track Court, Dindigul. During the pendency of the suit, first respondent's mother had died and therefore, first respondent herein was impleaded as legal heir.

¶6O.S.No.310 of 2004 was decreed by the Fast Track Court, Dindigul on 02.05.2006. The decree of the Fast Track Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.310 of 2004 filed by the petitioner was reversed by the High Court in A.S.No.41 of 2008 filed by the first respondent by its judgment and decree on 20.02.2017. A Special Leave Petition against the judgment and decree of this Court is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.19298 of 2017 filed by the petitioner, wherein, status quo has been ordered.

¶7It is therefore submitted that the trial Court was required to stay the subsequent suit in O.S.No.1187 of 2004 filed by the respondents before the District Munsif Court, Dinditul for redemption of mortgage created on 21.02.1989 by the first respondent's mother and for recovery of possession against the petitioner.

¶8The question of staying the subsequent suit in O.S.No.1187 of 2004 would arise only if the prior suit is pending in the same Court or any other court in India having jurisdiction. In this case, prior suit which was filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.310 of 2004 was decreed on

02.05.2006. The said decision was reversed by this Court in A.S.No.41 of 2008 on 20.02.2017.

¶9If the decision was uphold, the petitioner would be entitled to take plea of rejudicata under Section 11 of the Act. Mere pendency of the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not entitle the petitioner to stay the suit filed in O.S.No.1187 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has merely ordered status quo. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stayed the subsequent suit.

¶10Therefore, I am of the view that there is no case made out for interference. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.03.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The Principal District Munsif, Dindigul.

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

,J.

SN

27.03.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.03.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.11767 of 2022 1.Dindigul Taluk National Cotton Mills Thozhilar Sangam, Through its General Secretary. S.P.Murugan, S/o.S.Palanichamy, Door No.53A, Vadugamettu Rajakkapatti, Dindigul Town and District. ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ 1st Defendant (Petitioner's name is substituted vide Court order, dated 14.02.2023 made in CMP(MD)No.2454 of 2023) Vs. 1.Soundararajan 2.Renuka ` ... Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiffs PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order, dated 09.11.2022 in I.A.No. 628 of 2022 in OS No.1187 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Dindigul. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selva Aditya