{"id":153248,"date":"2008-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-03-09T07:50:39","modified_gmt":"2015-03-09T02:20:39","slug":"r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/08\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1204 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008\n\n1.R.S.Kanagavel (P1)\n2.R.Radhakrishnan (P2)\n3.G.Anandaiah (P3)\n4.J.Suresh Kumar (P4)\n5.K.Ravindran (P5)\n6.K.Radhakrishnan (P6)\n7.P.Venkatesh (P7)\n8.M.Muthuraj Nadar (P8)\n9.M.Balaji (P9)\n10.K.Meenakshi Sundaram (P10)\n11.S.aathiraja (P11)\n12.K.Ayyappan (P12)\n13.P.M.S.Ashokan (P13)\n14.P.Thangavel Nadar (P14)\n15.D.Balakrishna Nadar (P15)\n16.J.Vignesh Babu (P17)\n17.S.Rajesh Kumar (P18)\n18.M.Manoharan (P19)\n19.M.Karunai Anandam (P20)\n20.S.K.A.P.Kishan (P21)\n21.P.Palanikumar (P22)\n22.M.John (P23)\n23.K.S.Balakrishnan (P24)\n24.K.R.Paulraj (P25)\n25.K.A.Thiagarajan (P27)\n26.N.Karthikeyan (P28)\n27.J.Ragulan (P29)\n28.P.Senthilnathan (P30)\n29.N.Jayanathan (P31)\n30.G.J.Karuppiah (P32)\n31.S.A.K.C. Murugesan (P33)\n32.R.Sreedara Prabhu (P34)\n33.P.Vetrivel Pandian (P35)\n34.D.Arun Kumar (P36)\n35.D.Gajendra Kumar (P37)\n36.M.S.Manoharan (P38)\n37.S.Dhanasekaran (P40)\n38.D.Karthikeyan (P41)\n39.J.Thangamurali (P42)\n40.K.Selvakani (P43)\n41.S.Mohan (P44)\n42.M.Ameer Thangadaran (P45)\n43.D.Jayavel (P46)\n44.J.A.Thalaimuthu (P47)\n45.P.K.Gurusamy (P48)\n46.P.Pratheep (50)\n47.S.Raman (P51)\n48.A.M.Ponnupandian (P52)\t\t...Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.M.Palanikumar\n2.P.S.Pandian\n3.A.S.R.Jayaseelaln\n4.S.K.A.P.Balakrishnan\n5.O.K.Thirupathi\n6.R.V.Kamaraj\n7.P.P.Sowrirajan (P16)\n8.N.S.Mariappan (P26)\n9.S.Balakrishnan (P39)\n10.A.S.K.Karunanidhi Raghavan (P 49)\n(Petitioners 16,26,39 and 49 are transposed as Respondents 7 to 10 vide\n order of this Court dated 12.8.2008 in\n MP(MD) No.2 of 2008)\t\t\t...Respondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nPetition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against\nthe fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.70 of 2008 in O.S.No.58 of 2007,\ndated 01.04.2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Theni.\n\n!For Petitioners       ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n\n^For Respondents-1&2   ...  Mr.S.Balasubramania \t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t            Iyer\n\nFor Respondents-3to6   ...  Mr.M.Ajmalkhan\n\nFor Respondents-7 to 10...  Mr.S.S.Sundar\n\n- - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tThis Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dismissing an
\napplication filed by the petitioners herein under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead
\nthemselves as parties to O.S.No.58 of 2007 pending on the file of the Principal
\nDistrict Court, Theni.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners,
\nMr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
\n(plaintiffs in the suit), Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents 3 to 6 and Mr.S.S.Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the parties,
\nwho were earlier shown as petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition and who
\nlater got transposed as respondents-7 to 10, on the ground that they never were
\nparties to the Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. Theni Melappettai Hindu Nadargal Uravinmurai, is a society
\nregistered originally under the Societies Registration Act and later deemed to
\nhave been registered under the Tamil Nadu Act. The history of litigation in this
\nSociety is much longer than the history of the very Society itself. Since the
\nwhole history of this litigation may consume many pages, I could not trace the
\nsame in entirety. But I shall take the date 7.4.2007 as the starting point for
\ndisposing of this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. On 7.4.2007, a General Body Meeting was convened and elections
\nwere held in the aforesaid Society. After the elections, another General Body
\nMeeting was convened to be held on 28.5.2007 for electing members to various
\nCommittees and sub Committees. This was done by a notice dated 1.5.2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. Upon receipt of the said notice dated 1.5.2007, the respondents 1
\nand 2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.114 of 2007 on the file of the District
\nMunsif Court, Theni, challenging the notice and seeking various other reliefs.
\nIn the said suit, the respondents 1 and 2 described themselves as representing
\nthe members of the Society. In other words, the plaint showed the respondents 1
\nand 2 herein as persons suing in a representative capacity.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. Therefore an application was directed to be taken out under Order
\nI, Rule 8 CPC, in which an order was passed for publication of a notice. A
\nnotice was accordingly published on 24.5.2007 in ‘Daily Thanthi” news paper.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. It appears that in response to the said notice, some of the
\nmembers of the Society merely filed vakalats before the Trial Court, without
\nnecessary applications in terms of sub Rule (3) of Rule 8 of Order I CPC.
\nTherefore, those vakalats were not actually taken note of.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. In the meantime, there were various proceedings arising out of
\nthe filing of Form No.7, on the writ side of this Court. Ultimately, the
\nDivision Bench of this Court, directed the suit to be transferred to the file of
\nthe District Court, Theni to be tried along with another connected suit and
\nfurther directed the District Court to dispose of the suit on or before
\n31.3.2008. In pursuance of the said order, the suit was transferred from the
\nfile of the District Munsif Court, Theni to the file of the District Court,
\nTheni and got renumbered as O.S.No.58 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. In the meantime, 8 elected Office bearers of the Society filed
\nI.A.No.127 of 2007 seeking to implead themselves as parties to the suit. The
\nsaid application was rejected by the District Court by an order dated 7.3.2008.
\nSimilarly a group of 311 members of the Society filed an application for
\nimpleading in I.A.SR No.1065 of 2008 and the same was also dismissed by the
\nDistrict Court by an order dated 28.3.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. As against the said orders, both the groups viz., the group
\ncomprising of 8 elected Office bearers and the other group comprising of 311
\npersons, filed two Civil Revision Petitions in CRP (PD)(MD) Nos.616 and 818 of
\n2008. Both the Civil Revision Petitions were disposed of by a common order dated
\n29.4.2008 by R. Banumathi, J. The operative portion of the order disposing of
\nboth the Civil Revision Petitions, is extracted as follows:-
\n\t“24. To avoid the procedural difficulties, the Revision Petitioners in CRP
\nNo.616 of 2008 are permitted to defend the suit on behalf of 311 Objectors. The
\nnames of 311 Objectors may be furnished to the Court and list of 311 Objectors
\nshall form part of the records in O.S.No.58 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. CRP No.616 of 2008:- The impugned order in I.A.No.127 of 2007 in
\nO.S.No.58 of 2007 dated 7.3.2008 is set aside and CRP No.616 of 2008 is allowed
\nwith the following directions:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Revision Petitioners in CRP No.616 of 2008 are ordered to be impleaded
\nas Defendants 5 to 12 in O.S.No.58 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tDefendants 5 to 12 are permitted to defend the suit in a representative
\ncapacity representing 311 other Objectors. The list of 311 Objectors whom D5 to
\nD12 would represent shall be furnished in a separate list and the list shall
\nform part of the Court records.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile impleading the Revision Petitioners as D5 to D12, in the cause
\ntitle, it shall be stated that D5 to D12 for themselves and on behalf of 311
\nother Objectors.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Revision Petitioners are hereby permitted to defend the suit for
\nthemselves and on behalf of the other Objectors in a representative capacity.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In view of the above directions, CRP No.818 of 2008 is disposed of.
\nConsequently, the connected MPs in both the Revisions are closed.
\n\tIn view of the order passed in these Revision, the learned Principal
\nDistrict Judge, Theni shall obtain extension of time for disposal of the suits
\nby writing to the Registry.\n<\/p>\n
\tAll parties concerned are directed to co-operate with the trial Court to
\ndispose the suits within the time frame fixed by the Bench.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. In pursuance of the said order passed by this Court, the group
\nof 311 persons have actually come on record without either being plaintiffs or
\nbeing defendants. However, the other group of 8 persons were impleaded as
\ndefendants 5 to 12 in the suit and they have been allowed to represent those 311
\npersons by virtue of the order passed in both the aforesaid Civil Revision
\nPetitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. Subsequently, a third group of 52 persons filed a similar
\napplication for impleading in I.A.SR No.1300 of 2008 under Order I, Rule 10 CPC.
\nThe District Court, Theni, dismissed that application without even numbering it,
\nby an order dated 23.4.2008. Therefore the said group of 52 persons filed CRP
\n(PD) (MD) No.946 of 2008, challenging the rejection of the application I.A.SR
\nNO.1300 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. The said Civil Revision Petition CRP (PD) (MD) No.946 of 2008,
\nwas allowed by K.K.Sashidharan, J., by an order dated 17.6.2008, following the
\norder passed in the earlier two Civil Revision Petitions. The operative portion
\nof the order of K.K.Sasidharan, J., in CRP (PD) (MD) No.946 of 2008 reads as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside
\nthe order dated 23.4.2008 in I.A.SR No.1300 of 2008 and the matter is remitted
\nto the learned trial Judge to number the application in I.A.SR No.1300 of 2008
\nand to pass appropriate orders, after hearing both sides, and in the light of
\nthe orders passed by this Court dated 29.4.2008 in CRP (PD)(MD) Nos.616 of 2008
\nand 818 of 2008, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a
\ncopy of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
\nshall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
\npetition is closed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. In pursuance of the said order, the District Court, Theni,
\nnumbered the application for impleading as I.A.No.70 of 2008. But after hearing,
\nthe Principal District Judge, Theni, dismissed the application I.A.No.70 of
\n2008, by the order dated 2.7.2008. It is against the said order that the
\npetitioners have come up with the present Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioners as well as the sailing respondents, contended that
\nin the light of the orders passed in the three Civil Revision Petitions CRP
\n(PD)(MD) Nos.616, 818 and 946 of 2008, the Court below committed an error in
\ndismissing the application for impleading. Both the learned counsel contended
\nthat when the CRP (PD)(MD)No.946 of 2008 was allowed by this Court, directing
\nthe Court below to number the application and to pass orders in tune with the
\ncommon order passed in the earlier two Civil Revision Petitions, it was not open
\nto the District Court, Theni, to reject the application for impleading. The
\nlearned counsel also drew my attention to the provisions of Order I, Rule 8 CPC
\nand contended that when the plaintiffs claimed to have instituted the suit in a
\nrepresentative capacity, they are not entitled to object to the members of the
\nSociety, seeking to implead themselves as parties. Order I, Rule 8 CPC, enables
\na person or a group of persons to sue or be sued or to defend a suit in a
\nrepresentative capacity. If the person whom the plaintiff seeks to represent, is
\nnot willing to be so represented, it is open to such a person to come on record
\nas a party and that therefore the order of the Court below rejecting the
\napplication for impleading is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents who sail along with the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. It is seen from the checkered history of this litigation that
\nthe present attempt by the petitioners to get impleaded, is only one more
\nattempt, to prevent the trial of the suit from taking off. The suit originally
\ninstituted, was admittedly in a representative capacity. This is why the Court
\nbelow ordered the publication of a notice in terms of Order I, Rule 8(2) CPC. In
\nresponse to the notice so published, the petitioners herein do not appear to
\nhave filed any application under Order I, Rule 8 (3) CPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. To be precise, the suit was instituted on 22.5.2007 and the
\nCourt ordered publication of a notice in terms of Order I, Rule 8 (2) CPC, in
\nI.A.No.26 of 2007 on 22.5.2007 itself. The publication was effected on 24.5.2007
\nindicating the date of hearing as 29.5.2007. But the present petitioners filed
\nI.A.No.70 of 2008 for impleading them as parties only on 16.4.2008 nearly after
\n11 months. Thus it is obvious that the petitioners herein did not seek to come
\non record in response to the notice published under Order I, Rule 8 (2) CPC.
\nThis is why their application is only for impleading under Order I, Rule 10 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. The affidavit in support of the application for impleading,
\nfiled by the petitioners discloses that the petitioners want to support the
\nresolutions passed on 7.4.2007 and 28.5.2007. The affidavit in entirety, apart
\nfrom the narration of the history of the case, discloses only the interest of
\nthe petitioners in supporting the resolutions said to have been passed on
\n7.4.2007 and 28.5.2007. In other words, the purpose of the petitioners seeking
\nto come on record is to support the beneficiaries of the resolutions passed in
\nthe Meetings held on 7.4.2007 and 28.5.2007. Those beneficiaries are already on
\nrecord as defendants 1 to 4 or defendants 5 to 12. For the purpose of supporting
\nthe case of one or the other of the parties, it is not necessary for a person to
\ncome on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. In any event, the conduct of the petitioners, disentitles them
\nto an order under Article 227 of the Constitution. Out of 52 petitioners, who
\nhave come up with the present Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order of
\nthe Court below, at least 4 persons have come up with an application in M.P.No.2
\nof 2008 contending that they never signed the vakalats and that they were never
\nparties to the Civil Revision Petition. In view of such a stand taken by some of
\nthe petitioners in the form of M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008, the counsel for the
\nrevision petitioners had no objection to M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008 being allowed.
\nThe said application was allowed today, permitting the transposition of the
\npetitioners in M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2008, who are petitioners 16, 26, 39 and 49 in
\nthis Civil Revision Petition, as respondents-7 to 10, in this Civil Revision
\nPetition. Therefore, the bona fides of the petitioners seeking to get impleaded,
\nitself is highly doubtful.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. Moreover, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed an additional
\ncounter affidavit, where they have taken a specific stand that the names
\ndisclosed in the cause title as petitioners in this civil revision petition are
\nnot actually the persons who have come to Court. In paragraph-7 of the
\nadditional counter affidavit, the respondents 1 and 2 have stated as follows:-
\n\t“7. The names and particulars of the petitioners who are also mentioned as
\nthe Revision Petitioners but who had not subscribed to the Vakalat by putting
\nthe signatures in it are detailed herein below:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Particulars of the petitioners who had not subscribed their signatures
\nin the Vakalat but their names had been written as if they had signed in it
\n Petitioner Numbers 2, 3, 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,17, 19,25,29,41,45,47 and 52.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Particulars of petitioners who were not in Theni or at nearby places,
\nbut their names had been written as if they had signed in it (place in brackets
\nis the place where they reside at present)
\n\tPetitioners Numbers 7 (Madras), 24 (Thiruppur), 28 (Madras), 35 (London),
\n36 (Madras), 37 (Madras), 38 (Bangalore), 42 and 46 (Madras).\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Particulars of the petitioners who used to sign only in English but
\ntheir names were written in Tamil as if they had signed in Tamil.
\n\tPetitioners Numbers 31 and 33.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Particulars of petitioners who have definitely asserted that they had
\nnot signed in the Vakalat.\n<\/p>\n
\tPetitioners Numbers 4,16, 26, 39, 48, 49.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) Particulars of petitioners who had not signed in the Vakalat and whose
\nnames had been written as if they had signed in the Vakalat.
\n\tPetitioners Numbers 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 30, 32, 35,40,43,44,50 and\n<\/p>\n
51.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore it is clear that the petitioners have not come to Court with clean
\nhands. The petition to implead has been filed in the names of 52 persons. But
\nmany of them could not have signed the vakalat or even consented to be parties.
\nIt is amply demonstrated by the contesting respondents that at least some of the
\nrevision petitioners never signed the vakalat nor agreed to be parties to the
\nCivil Revision Petition. Therefore if the Civil Revision Petition is to be
\nallowed and they have to be impleaded in the suit, this Court should first
\nconduct a roving enquiry about the signatures found in the vakalat filed with
\nthe Civil Revision Petition and find out who forged their signatures and how the
\nsignatures came to be attested. The petitioners do not deserve the luxury of
\nsuch a roving enquiry in a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 arising out
\nof an application for impleading.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. Moreover, it is clear that apart from supporting the case of the
\ndefendants 1 to 12, the petitioners herein have no other interest in the subject
\nmatter of the suit. There are actually about 500 members in the aforesaid
\nSociety. Out of those about 500 members, 12 persons have already been shown as
\ndefendants 1 to 12 and 311 persons have been permitted by the earlier orders of
\nthis Court, to come on record and be represented by defendants 5 to 12.
\nTherefore there is no necessity for the Court below to expand the scope by
\ninviting more and more persons to be parties. At this rate, I doubt if the trial
\nof the case will be allowed to proceed any further, since the remaining about
\n100 members may also come up with applications for impleading, taking advantage
\nof the earlier orders passed. It is needless to point out that procedure is only
\na handmaid and can never be allowed to become the mistress.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. The Division Bench of this Court had earlier directed the suit
\nto proceed on an expeditious basis so as to be disposed of on or before
\n31.3.2008. Now more than 4 months have passed, after the deadline set by this
\nCourt has expired. By allowing the parties batch by batch to come on record at
\nthis rate, it appears that the suit will never see the light of the day. The
\nlast election held on 7.4.2007, was for electing the Office bearers for a term
\nof 3 years. The suit was instituted in May 2007 and despite the chief
\nexamination of PW.1, the suit could not proceed any further because of these
\nsuccessive applications for impleadment. Order I, Rule 8 CPC, is intended only
\nto enable the parties to sue in a representative capacity and to enable some
\nparties to come on record if they think that their interest will not be
\nsafeguarded by the persons already on record. But the manner in which the
\napplications for impleading have been filed, with some persons claiming that
\nthey never signed the vakalat and the others conceding the application for
\ntransposition, it is clear that Order I, Rule 8 CPC, is only sought to be
\nmisused.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24. In any event, the petitioners herein did not take advantage of
\nthe provisions of Order I, Rule 8(3) CPC. At the time of institution of a suit
\nor entering the defence, the scheme of order I, Rule 8 CPC, contemplates 4
\nstages viz.,:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Persons having the same interest in one suit seeking the permission of
\nthe Court to sue or be sued or to defend a suit on behalf of or for the benefit
\nof all persons interested.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The Court passing an order granting permission or issuing a direction
\nthat one or more of such persons may sue or be sued or may defend the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) The Court thereafter issuing notice of the institution of the suit
\nto all persons interested either by personal service or by directing the
\npublication of an advertisement, to enable all persons interested, to know about
\nthe institution of the proceedings in a representative capacity and\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Application by a person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit
\nis instituted or defended, to be made a party to the suit, so that his interest
\ncan be taken care of by himself and not left to the wisdom of the other person
\nwho represents him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25. After the institution of a suit or entering into defence, Order
\nI, Rule 8 CPC, provides two safety valves under clauses (4) and (5) by providing\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) that no such suit shall be compromised or withdrawn or abandoned
\nwithout notice to all; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) that the Court may always substitute any person in the place of the
\nperson who was originally permitted to represent all.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t26. From the scheme of Order I, Rule 8 CPC, it is clear that if a
\nperson does not want the plaintiffs to represent him, he must take advantage of
\nsub Rule (3) of Rule 8 of Order I CPC and seek to come on record in response to
\nthe advertisement. He cannot seek to come after about 11 months of the
\npublication of the notice, by taking recourse to Order I, Rule 10 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27. In view of the above, I find no justification for reversing the
\norder of the Court below. The orders passed in the earlier Civil Revision
\nPetitions, were passed under the bona fide impression that a group of persons
\ndid not want the plaintiffs to represent them. But the expression of such good
\nfaith by the Court on the members has actually been misused. Therefore there is
\nno point in repeatedly allowing applications for impleading one after another on
\nthe basis of the earlier Civil Revision Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t28. An application for impleading, allowed by a Court, is a decision
\nas between the parties to the said application. Therefore any subsequent
\napplication can always be tested on its own merits. If so tested, it is clear
\nthat the petitioners herein are neither necessary parties nor proper parties.
\nAll that the petitioners want is to support the case of the contesting
\ndefendants viz., D5 to D12. This purpose can be well achieved by the
\npetitioners, by adducing evidence if they want. To adduce evidence, the
\npetitioners will necessarily have to come to the surface from wherever they are.
\nBut to file an impleading application, all that is required is only a signature
\nin the pleadings. This cannot be allowed to be taken advantage of by the
\npetitioners. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed
\nand hence it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t29. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 (the plaintiffs
\nin the suit) made a request to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit
\nwithin a time frame. But the parties have actually nullified even an earlier
\norder of the Division Bench of this Court to dispose of the suit by 31.3.2008.
\nTherefore it may only be an empty formality  if I fix a time frame. When the
\nsuit reached the stage of examination of PW.1, the impleading parties applied
\nthe reverse gear and brought the suit back to Order I, Rules 8 and 10 CPC. From
\nthere, the parties have sufficient ammunition in the form of various provisions
\nof the CPC such as amendment, reopen, recall, send for etc. All those weapons,
\nin my opinion, will be well utilised by the parties to see to it that every
\norder passed by this Court, fixing a date for the disposal of the suit, will be
\nnullified.  Yet I cannot lose hope as a Court of law. Therefore I direct the
\ntrial Court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit on or before
\n30.9.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t30. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is
\ndismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Svn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Court,
\n  Theni.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Munsif Court,
\n  Theni.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/08\/2008 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1204 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 1.R.S.Kanagavel (P1) 2.R.Radhakrishnan (P2) 3.G.Anandaiah (P3) 4.J.Suresh Kumar (P4) 5.K.Ravindran (P5) 6.K.Radhakrishnan (P6) 7.P.Venkatesh (P7) 8.M.Muthuraj Nadar (P8) 9.M.Balaji (P9) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-09T02:20:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-09T02:20:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3517,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\",\"name\":\"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-09T02:20:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-09T02:20:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-09T02:20:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008"},"wordCount":3517,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008","name":"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-09T02:20:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-s-kanagavel-p1-vs-m-palanikumar-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.S.Kanagavel (P1) vs M.Palanikumar on 12 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}