Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sheik Dawood Vs. Pandi

Sheik Dawood vs Pandi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 18, 2014
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167908

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheik Dawood

Respondent

Pandi

Excerpt

.....also contested the suit by way of filing his written statement as early as during october 2007.4. during the pendency of the said suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has also taken out an interlocutory application in i.a.no.321 of 2011, under order viii rule 9 of the code of civil procedure, seeking permission to file additional pleadings.5. after hearing both sides, the learned district munsif, devakottai, has proceeded to dismiss the said interlocutory application, by his order dated 22.07.2013, on the ground that granting such relief, as sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, will abridge the defence of the respondent/defendant.6. heard mr.v.janakiramyulu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff as well as mr.ar.l.sundaresan, learned senior counsel, appearing for mrs.a.l.ganthimathi, learned counsel on record for the respondent/defendant and perused the materials available on record.7. when the revision petition is taken up for hearing, mr.ar.l.sundaresan, learned senior counsel has got no objection to grant such permission, without causing prejudice to the main suit, to file the additional pleadings, as sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, and he has also urged this court two weeks time might be granted to the respondent/defendant to file his additional written statement.8. considering the submissions made by mr.ar.l.sundaresan, learned senior counsel, this court finds that this memorandum of civil revision petition be allowed and the impunged order be set aside.9. accordingly, this memorandum of civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22.07.2013, and made in i.a.no.321 of 2011 in o.s.no.103 of 2007, on the file of the learned district munsif, devakottai, is set aside and the interlocutory application in i.a.no.321 of 2011 is allowed. the learned district munsif, devakottai, is directed to take the additional pleadings, which is already filed by the revision petition/plaintiff, on his.....

Full Judgment

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

18. 06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.1632 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 Sheik Dawood ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff -vs- Pandi ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant PRAYER Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal orders, dated 22.07.2013, and made in I.A.No.321 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai. !For Petitioner : Mr.V.Janakiramulu ^For Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi :ORDER

Challenge is made in this memorandum of civil revision petition to the fair and decretal orders, dated 22.07.2013, and made in I.A.No.321 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, whereas the respondent herein is the defendant therein.

3. It appears that the the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The respondent/defendant has also contested the suit by way of filing his written statement as early as during October 2007.

4. During the pendency of the said suit, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has also taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.321 of 2011, under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to file additional pleadings.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, has proceeded to dismiss the said interlocutory application, by his Order dated 22.07.2013, on the ground that granting such relief, as sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, will abridge the defence of the respondent/defendant.

6. Heard Mr.V.Janakiramyulu, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff as well as Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, learned counsel on record for the respondent/defendant and perused the materials available on record.

7. When the revision petition is taken up for hearing, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel has got no objection to grant such permission, without causing prejudice to the main suit, to file the additional pleadings, as sought for by the revision petitioner/plaintiff, and he has also urged this Court two weeks time might be granted to the respondent/defendant to file his additional written statement.

8. Considering the submissions made by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel, this Court finds that this memorandum of civil revision petition be allowed and the impunged order be set aside.

9. Accordingly, this memorandum of civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 22.07.2013, and made in I.A.No.321 of 2011 in O.S.No.103 of 2007, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, is set aside and the interlocutory application in I.A.No.321 of 2011 is allowed. The learned District Munsif, Devakottai, is directed to take the additional pleadings, which is already filed by the revision petition/plaintiff, on his file and the respondent/defendant is directed to file his additional written statement, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, is directed to dispose the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2007, within a period of two months thereafter, without loss of further time, as the suit is relating to the year of 2007. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. To The District Munsif, District Munsif Court, Devakottai. 

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial