← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1181/2018dismissed

Kuppamal v. The Government Employees

2018-04-05Honourable Mr Justice P. Velmurugan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 05.04.2018

CORAM

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN CRP(PD).No.1181 of 2018 & C.M.P.No.6107 of 2018 1.Kuppamal 2.Balaji 3.Sathish Babu 4.Jayaprakash .. Petitioners vs.

1.The Government Employees' Welfare Association, Rep. By its President Mr.K.M.Devaraj, No.2, Vallalar Lane, Periyakuppam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District.

2.P.Ganesan, Secretary, Government Employees' Welfare Association, No.2, Vallalar Lane, Periyakuppam Village, Thiruvallur Taluk and District.

.. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.12.2017 passed in I.A.No.895 of 2017 in O.S.No.84 of 2013 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur.

For Petitioner ... M/s.G.Kaviyarasu

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff against the order passed in I.A.No.895 of 2017 in O.S.No.84 of 2013 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvallur.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents filed interlocutory application before the trial Court in I.A.No.895 of 2017 in O.S.No.84 of 2013 to receive the document Nos.1 to 15, however, the trial Court received the document Nos.1,2,4,7,15 to 17 and rejected the document Nos.3,8 to 14. Aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court, the present revision has been filed.

3. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the documents which were mentioned in the said petition is no way connected with the suit dispute and the trial court without considering the submissions made by the revision petitioner, received the documents. The application filed by the respondent herein before the trial Court was not in proper and their only motive for filing the application one after another is to drag on the proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5. Before the trial Court, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 8 Rule 3(A) and Section 151 of C.P.C to receive the documents filed by the defendants and the document Nos.1,2,4,7,15 to 17 were received and document Nos.3,8 to 14 were rejected.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the documents are no way connected to the suit, however, the trial Court has received the documents despite the objection raised at the time of receiving the documents.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that only to protract the proceedings they filed the application one after another and time may be fixed for earlier disposal and to avoid the delay. The suit is of the year 2013, now the plaintiff side evidence is completed. The respondent/defendant has filed the application, however the admissibility and validity of the documents can be decided only during trial in accordance with law in appropriate time. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.04.2018 ub To The Principal Sub Court, Thiruvallur.

P.VELMURUGAN.J, ub CRP(PD).No.1181 of 2018 & C.M.P.No.6107 of 2018 05.04.2018