In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 21/06/2004
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ
Civil Revision Petition (P.D)No.2586 of 2003
and
C.M.P.No.19507 of 2003
J.David ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. J.Solomon
2. D.Suganthi
3. Y.Durairaj ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India praying for the relief as stated therein.
For petitioner : No appearance
For respondents : Mr.G.Jermiah
:O R D E R
The above civil revision petition has been filed against the
order dated 30.01.2003 and made in I.A.No.56 of 2000 in O.S.No.139 of 1991 on
the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur.
2. Today when the above civil revision petition was taken up
for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, with no representation made on the part of the petitioner,
this Court is left with no choice but to pass this order hearing only the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and having regard to
the materials placed on record in which event this Court is able to assess
that the interlocutory application filed in I.A.No.56 of 2000 in the regular
suit O.S.No.139 of 2001 pending on the file of Court of Subordinate Judge,
Tiruvallur which is the subject of dispute has been filed before the lower
Court with the prayer for the appointment of a Commission in the final decree
petition at the final decree stage which is vehemently opposed by the other
side resulting in the interlocutory application being dismissed by the trial
Court, testifying the validity of which, the plaintiff has come forward to
file the above civil revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
would point out that one of the items shown as Item 6-A in the list of suit
schedule properties in the final decree petition, do not form part of the
preliminary decree at all and, therefore, anything done much less the
appointment of a Commission for the division of the properties, based on such
a defective schedule of properties, will only result in failure of justice
and, therefore, at no stretch of imagination such an application could be
allowed and the dismissal by the trial Court has been done rightly.
4. This Court does not have a second opinion so far as the
decision arrived at by the trial Court in dismissing the above interlocutory
application filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.56 of 2000 in the above said suit
and the decision has been made based on a clear discussion held on the subject
in which, the doubts raised by the other side has been substantially proved
and, therefore, this Court does not find any valid or tangible reason to cause
its interference in the order made by the lower Court and hence, the following
order.
In result,
(i) the above civil revision petition does not merit
acceptance and it becomes only liable to be dismissed and is dismissed
accordingly;
(ii) the order dated 30.01.2003 and made in I.A.No.56of 2000 in
O.S.No.139 of 1991 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur is confirmed;
(iii) consequently, connected C.M.P.No.9507 of 2003 is closed;
(iv) there shall be no order as to costs.
Index :Yes
Internet :Yes
kvsg