P.B. Hari Singh v. Kamala Ranjeeth (Died)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.07.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.2855 of 2018 P.B.Hari Singh ...

Petitioner Vs Kamala Ranjeeth(died) 1.R.K.Kumar 2.R.Arun Singh 3.Jwala Manohar Singh 4.Anitha Gopal Singh 5.Subashini P.B.Jain Singh(died) P.B.Jaggu Singh(died) Padmini Sundar Singh(died) Jothi Kesar Singh(died) 6.Santha Muni Sing 7.Rajini 8.Geetha Ramakrishna Singh 9.T.Takur Singh 10.Yeswant Singh 11.Vimal 12.M/s.Essential Oil and Chemico Industries Ltd., Yercaud, Salem District 13.J.Jaiprakash Singh 14.Sujatha Ramesh Singh 15.P.J.Ajith Singh 16.P.J.Mahadev Singh 17.P.J.Ramesh Singh 1/6

18.P.J.Lakshmi 19.Gowri Sankar Singh 20.Sumitra Bai 21.Manonmani 22.R.Sheela Rathan Singh 23.S.Lakshmi 24.D.Jhansi Bai 25.K.Mukesh Singh ...

Respondents Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem to number and dispose of the application in unnumbered IA.SR.No.959 of 2018 in OS.No.405 of 1994.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Kumarasamy For Respondents For R12,15&17: Mr.N.Jayakumar For R18 : Mr.K.Veelayaraj

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket order in unnumbered IA.SR.No.959 of 2018 in OS.No.405 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, thereby returned the petition as not maintainable.

2/6

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed suit for partition. While pending suit, the parties concerned filed compromise memo and accordingly final decree was passed. According to the petitioner, while passing final decree, there is a specific clause that the parties are at liberty to take steps to wind up the company M/s.Essential Oil and Chemico Industries Ltd., Yercaud and divide the suit property in proportion of their shares as stated above. Therefore, his share was not divided by metes and bounds. As such, he filed petition to divide as per his share allotted in the compromise decree by metes and bounds after appointment of advocate commissioner. The said application was returned for the reason that how the petitioner can seek division of the property when the final decree did not whisper about the division of the immovable property standing in the name of the company.

3. This Court feels that the court below need not go into the merits of the application even before numbering the same. Therefore, the petitioner may be directed to re-present the application. 3/6

4. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to return the original application and on receipt of the same, the petitioner is directed to re-present the same before the court below within a period of two weeks thereafter. On receipt of the same, the court below is directed to number the same and decide the application on merits and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.

5.With the above directions, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

23.07.2021 lok Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No 4/6

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

lok To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem C.R.P.(NPD) No.2855 of 2018 23.07.2021 6/6