IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:05.03.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(PD).No.4154 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 Subramani ... Petitioner vs. M.Palaniappan ... Respondent This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 09.08.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in I.A.No.344 of 2008 in O.S.No.32 of 2005. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : No appearance ORDER
Animadverting upon the order dated 09.08.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in I.A.No.344 of 2008 in O.S.No.32 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision would run thus:
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.32 of 2005 for recovery of money. On plaintiff’s side, PW1 was examined and he was also cross-examined. At that stage, the I.A.No.344 of 2008 was filed by the revision petitioner/defendant herein seeking the following relief:
“this Honourable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/defendant to proceed with this case and jointly along with I.P.5/07 on the file of this Honourable Court in the interest of justice and thus render justice.”
After hearing both the sides, the lower Court dismissed it. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds inter alia thus:
The issues involved in the O.S.No.32 of 2005 and in I.P.No.5 of 2007 are one and the same and as such, ordering joint trial would meet the ends of justice but the trial Court without understanding the real purport of law simply dismissed it.
3. Despite printing the names of the persons concerned, none appeared.
4. A plain poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the order of the lower Court would exemplify and display that the I.P.No.5 of 2007 was filed and focussed by the revision petitioner/defendant herein, as against 12 persons including the respondent/plaintiff herein. The lower court in its order observed and remarked that the said I.P is at the stage of filing counter only; whereas the suit O.S.No.32 of 2005 reached the stage of trial and PW1 was already cross-examined by the revision petitioner/defendant. Hence, the lower court thought fit not to order for joint trial.
5. In this factual matrix, it is glaringly and pellucidly, palpably and explicitly clear, so to say, as clear as day, that in the I.P filed by the revision petitioner/defendant, there are as many as 12 respondents and various debts are contemplated as found described in the schedule appended to the I.P. As such, certainly the proceedings in the I.P would be a long drawn process. Whereas in the suit O.S. No.32 of 2005 only one debt is contemplated and the trial is in progress and within a short span of time the money suit O.S.No.32 of 2005 is expected to be disposed of legally. Once adjudication is made in this suit, the certified copy of the judgment would be taken as such as evidence in the I.P proceedings.
6. Section 29 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 is reproduced here under for ready reference:
29. Stay of pending proceedings:- Any court in which a suit or other proceeding is pending against a debtor shall, on proof that an order of adjudication has been made against him under this Act, either stay the proceedings, or allow it to continue on such terms as such Court may impose.”
A plain reading of the provision extracted supra would indicate and spotlight that if at all in the I.P there is any adjudication, then subsequent proceedings in the suit should be stayed. But here, it is other way about. The suit is in progress, but I.P.is still at the embryonic stage. Put simply, the ratiocination adhered to by the lower Court in proceeding with the trial in the suit independently, warrants no interference and in fact deciding the suit would save time proportionately in dealing with the I.P relating to the matter concerning this suit.
7. Hence, I see no merit in this revision. Accordingly, the revision fails and the same is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower court in I.A.No.344 of 2008. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vj2
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Sankari