L.Balakumarasamy v. M/S. N. Selvarajulu Chetty

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.04.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MS. INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR O.S.A.No.99 of 2017 L.BALAKUMARASAMY REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT, L.GNANAMBA DEVI NO.14, RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR SECOND CROSS STREET THIRUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI - 41 .. Appellant Vs.

1 N.SELVARAJULU CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES

1. DR. H.B.N. SHETTY I.AS. RETD.

2. N.C. RAGHAVACHARI

3. R. KRISHNAMOORTHY 2 S. SARVOTHAMAN, Adopted son of Somasundaram Chettiar 3 N RATHINAVELU 4 N NARAYANI 5 N SUMATHI 6 B JAYAKUMAR 7 J. GNANAPRAKASAM 8 S PADMANABHAN 9 MUNISHI NANDA 10 ASHYISH NANDA 11 S.V. BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT 11-A, THIRUVALLUVAR SALAI THRIUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI 41.

12 J. ASHOKKUMAR 13 UMA K RAMANATHAN 14 VINAYA VAIDHYANATHAN 15 SAROJA DEVI 16 UMA PARVATHY

17 MAHENDRAKUMAR BOTHRA 18 RAMACHANDRAN 19 P.S. ALAMELU 20 S.ANNAPOORNI 21 M.P. MOIDU 22 C.P. NASINA MOIDU 23 S. SRIRAM 24 LAKSHMI SRIRAM 25 C.KAMALAM 26 LAKSHMI AMMAL TRUST REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, S VENKATARAMAN OFFICE AT NO.18, Dr.RADHAKRISHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, THIRUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI.

M.RAMACHANDRAN (DIED) 27 KULJEET SINGH BHATIA 28 DR.ASHA CHAKRAVARTHI 29 SRINVATSAN 30 ANURADHA MEENAKSHI AMMAL (DECEASED) 31 GURUMOORTHY NATARAJAN Smt Meenakshi Ammal (Deceased) 32 V.MURUGESAN 33 M.ANGAMMAL 34 R.MANOHAR .. Respondents (Respondents 2 to 33 were set ex parte in C.S., hence they are given up in OSA) (34th Respondents Impleaded as per Order dated 3.12.13 in A.No. 4794 of 2013) PRAYER: Appeal under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order and decreetal order of learned Single Judge dated 3.3.2016 in A.No.5829 of 2014 in C.S.No.259 of 1997.

For Appellant : Mr.Tranquebar Dorai Vasu for R.T. Duraisamy

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by M.Sundar,J.) This is an intra court appeal. This intra court appeal is directed against an order dated 3.3.2016 made by a learned

Single Judge of this Court in A.No.5829 of 2014, dismissing an application seeking a direction that the plaintiff should consider an offer (offer in respect of Plot No.14 forming part of suit schedule property) given by the appellant/32nd defendant and extend the benefit to the appellant/32nd defendant, as was done in the case of defendants 12 and 13, by order dated 19.3.2009 (this order is in respect of Plot No.20 forming part of suit schedule property).

2. It is to be noted that this application was taken out by the 32nd defendant in the main suit. In other words, the 32nd defendant in the main suit is the appellant before us.

3. The only pivotal point as urged and the only point which has also been canvassed in the hearing at the bar before us is that a similar order was passed in favour of defendants 12 and 13, being order dated 19.3.2009 made in C.S.No.259 of 199, which is at page 29 of the typed set of papers. It was reiterated by the learned counsel before us that an order that was passed in favour of defendants 12 and 13 (according to him) should be passed in favour of the appellant/32nd defendant also.

4. We have perused the order dated 19.3.2009.

5. We find from the order that the learned Single Judge has merely recorded a memorandum of compromise inter se parties, on the same being presented before the Court with a prayer to record the same and make it an order of the Court. Therefore, on the face of it, we find the prayer in the application itself to be misconceived as the Court cannot compel any party to a litigation to enter into a compromise. We have also noticed that while the earlier compromise was in 2009, the present application has been taken out in 2014, five years later.

6. Owing to all that have been stated supra, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge which has been called in question before us. We are in agreement with the view of learned Single Judge that the parties cannot be compelled to enter into a compromise. Learned Single Judge has also held that Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in matters of this nature and we have no reason to disagree or interfere.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.6809 of 2017 is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

sasi To The Sub Assistant Registrar Original Side High Court, Madras.

+1cc to mr.R.T. Duraisamy, Advocate Sr. 24569 O.S.A.No.99 of 2017 RSI(CO) VR(8/5/2017)