Rajendran. Vs. Nallammal

Rajendran vs Nallammal

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 19, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/927072

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/927072
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: G.Rajasuria, J.
Decided On: Apr 19, 2012
Case Number: C.R.P.(PD).No.1453 of 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

[G.RAJASURIA, J.] The above civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit O.S.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District, Namakkal. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is directed to transmit the r...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajendran

Advocate Mr.P.Valliappan, Adv

Respondent

Nallammal

Excerpt

[g.rajasuria, j.] the above civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit o.s.no.50 of 2011, on the file of the principal district, namakkal. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. the principal district munsif court, namakkal, is directed to transmit the records in o.s.no.54 of 2011 to the file of principal district court, namakkal, immediately and the learned principal district judge, namakkal, shall try all the three suits simultaneously, by affording an opportunity to the parties, and dispose of the same......revision petition is filed seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit o.s.no.50 of 2011, on the file of the principal district, namakkal.2. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.3. the whole kit and caboodle of the facts and figures that could be inferred and understood from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the records would be to the effect that there are three suits,namely, o.s.nos.50, 54 and 74 of 2011, in which the revision petitioner herein happened to be the plaintiff in o.s.no.50 of 2011, which is a suit for specific performance. whereas, o.s.no.54 of 2011 is for partition and separate possession and o.s.no.74 of 2011 is for declaration and for obtaining injunction. 4. the contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in o.s.no.50 of 2011 is that the subject matter of the partition suit, namely, o.s.no.54 of 2011, happened to be the subject matter of his suit in o.s.no.50 of 2011, as he happened to be the agreement holder. 5. earlier this court passed order dated 13.7.2011, in c.m.a.(npd).nos.1423 and 1425 of 2011 and paragraph no.11 of which is extracted hereunder:"11. accordingly, without going into the merits of the cases, o.s.ns.54 and 74 of 2011 are transferred to the file of the principal district court, namakkal. the principal district munsif court, namakkal, is directed to transmit the records in o.s.no.54 of 2011 to the file of principal district court, namakkal, immediately and the learned principal district judge, namakkal, shall try all the three suits simultaneously, by affording an opportunity to the parties, and dispose of the same."6. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would air the grievance to the effect that this court ordered that the lower court shall try all the three suits simultaneously; however, in the two other suits, namely, o.s.nos.54 and 74 of 2011, the parties are filing spate of applications.....

Full Judgment

Civil revision petition preferred seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit O.S.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District, Namakkal.

ORDER

1. The above civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the suit O.S.No.50 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District, Namakkal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

3. The whole kit and caboodle of the facts and figures that could be inferred and understood from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the records would be to the effect that there are three suits,namely, O.S.Nos.50, 54 and 74 of 2011, in which the revision petitioner herein happened to be the plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2011, which is a suit for specific performance. Whereas, O.S.No.54 of 2011 is for partition and separate possession and O.S.No.74 of 2011 is for declaration and for obtaining injunction.

4. The contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2011 is that the subject matter of the partition suit, namely, O.S.No.54 of 2011, happened to be the subject matter of his suit in O.S.No.50 of 2011, as he happened to be the agreement holder.

5. Earlier this Court passed order dated 13.7.2011, in C.M.A.(NPD).Nos.1423 and 1425 of 2011 and paragraph No.11 of which is extracted hereunder:

"11. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the cases, O.S.Ns.54 and 74 of 2011 are transferred to the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. The Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal, is directed to transmit the records in O.S.No.54 of 2011 to the file of Principal District Court, Namakkal, immediately and the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, shall try all the three suits simultaneously, by affording an opportunity to the parties, and dispose of the same."

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would air the grievance to the effect that this Court ordered that the lower Court shall try all the three suits simultaneously; however, in the two other suits, namely, O.S.Nos.54 and 74 of 2011, the parties are filing spate of applications and dragging on the proceedings and as such, the revision petitioner's suit O.S.No.50 of 2011 is getting delayed.

7. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to file necessary memo before the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, for the conduct of joint trial of all the three suits and whereupon, the lower Court shall, after hearing all concerned in all the suits, pass suitable orders relating to conducting of joint trial, so that, that would obviate divergent judgements emerging from those suits. In matters of this nature, the trial Court shall do well to see that expeditious disposal is undertaken. Hence, in these circumstances I am of the view that the following direction could be given:

The trial Court, namely, the Principal District Court, Namakkal, shall do well to see that all the aforesaid three suits, namely, O.S.Nos.50, 54 and 74 of 2011, are disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably, by the end of August 2012.

5. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2012 Same Parties Rajendran vs Nallammal Same Subject Education Same Judge G.Rajasuria, J.

Education