IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 9.4.2010
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
C.R.P.(PD) No.3702 of 2009
A.Ganesan ... Petitioner
vs.
1. N.Pushpavalli 2.N.Vadivelu
3. N.Palanivel
All 3 are residing at
No.9/364, B type
Sidco Nagar, Villivakkam
Chennai 600 049
4. M/s.Thirumangalam Janobaraga Permanent
Fund Ltd.,
No.1945, 18th Main Road
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040
5. P.R.Nataraja Devar
Vijaya Tiffen Centre
Devakottai,
Siva Ganga District
(R4 & R5 were set exparte
in the trial Court, hence given up) ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 9.10.2009, made in I.A.No.14293 of 2009 in O.S.No.8185 of 2005 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendrakumar
For Respondents: Mr.V.Chandrakanthan
for R1 to R3
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 9.10.2009, made in I.A.No.14293 of 2009, in O.S.No.8185 of 2005, on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.8185 of 2005, on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking for damages and for eviction, to evict the respondents 1 to 3 from the suit property. The petitioner had also filed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.14293 of 2009, praying that the trial Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing certain documents and to permit the petitioner to file the documents in the suit, in O.S.No.8185 of 2005.
3. Challenging the order of the trial Court, dated 9.10.2009, dismissing the interlocutory application, on the ground that the document had not been filed, along with the interlocutory application, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had contended that even though the documents had been filed, along with the interlocutory application, the trial Court had erred in stating that the documents had not been filed, along with the said interlocutory application. Further, the necessity to file the additional documents arose due to the fact that the plaint had been amended, on 9.6.2009. In such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have allowed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.14293 of 2009.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had contended that the petitioner had sought to file the documents, belatedly. Further, the list of the documents had not been given to the counsel for the respondents, at the time of the filing of the said interlocutory application.
6. The petitioner had filed the said interlocutory application to file the additional document in the suit, in O.S.No.8185 of 2005, due to the reason that the plaint had been amended, on 9.6.2009. It has also been stated that the documents had been filed, along with the interlocutory application. However, the trial Court had not taken note of the fact that the documents had been filed, along with the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, in I.A.No.14293 of 2009.
7. In such circumstances, it is found that the petitioner would be prejudiced, if his request to file the documents, as prayed for in I.A.No.14293 of 2009, is not permitted. In such view of the matter, the order, dated 9.10.2009, made in I.A.No.14293 of 2009, in O.S.No.8185 of 2005, on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside and the interlocutory application in I.A.No.14293 of 2009, is allowed. The petitioner would be permitted to file the documents, as prayed for in the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.14293 of 2009, subject to the objections to be raised by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.
9.4.2010 INDEX : YES INTERNET : YES To: The III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai M.JAICHANDREN J., lan C.R.P.(PD) No.3702 of 2009 9.4.2010