Mrs.Jamshit Begum v. Mrs.Asmathunisa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN CRP (PD) NOS.3039, 3040 AND 3041 OF 2016 AND CMP NOS.15367, 15368 AND 15369 OF 2016 Jamshit Begum ...
Petitioner in all CRPs'
Versus
Asmathunisa ...
Respondent in all CRPs'
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 27.06.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.13732, 13733 and 13734 of 2015 respectively in O.S.No.6141 of 2013 by the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen For Respondent :
Mr.G.Jeremiah COMMON ORDER The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent in O.S.No.6141 of 2013 for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with her peaceful possession of the property
and not to evict her except by due process of law. The suit was contested by the respondent.
2. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of the witnesses on the side of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent filed applications in I.A.Nos.13732, 13733 and 13734 of 2015 to reopen and recall P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross examination and to file additional written statement. The applications were allowed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with these three Civil Revision Petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent wanted to evict the petitioner, without filing eviction petition and that was the reason for filing the civil suit. According to the learned counsel, the witnesses on the side of the petitioner, have already been cross examined by the respondent. The Trial Court was therefore not correct in allowing the applications.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance on the memo dated 14 July 2015 filed before the Trial Court submitted that nothing survives for adjudication in the civil suit in view
of the initiation of Rent Control Original Petition in RCOP No.445 of 2014 before the Rent Controller, Chennai. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court has to record the memo and dismiss the suit.
5. The suit in O.S.No.6141 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner with an apprehension that she would be forcibly evicted from the suit schedule property. During the currency of the suit, the respondent filed an eviction petition in RCOP No.445 of 2014. Before the Trial Court, the respondent filed a memo dated 14 July 2015, wherein an undertaking was given that the petitioner would not be evicted without following due process of law. There was a further indication in the said memo that she has already filed RCOP No.445 of 2014 and as such, nothing survives for adjudication in the civil suit in O.S.No.6141 of 2013.
6. The cause of action for filing the civil suit appears to be the action taken by the respondent to evict the petitioner from the suit property. Now that the respondent herself filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller and has given an undertaking that the petitioner would not be evicted, without following due process of law, there is no question of adjudicating the issue raised in the civil suit.
7. The learned Trial Judge is directed to consider the memo
dated 14 July 2015 containing an undertaking that the petitioner would not be evicted without following due process of law and the pendency of the Rent Control Original Petition and pass appropriate orders on merits and as per law.
8. In view of the memo filed by the respondent, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge at this point of time.
9. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.11.2016 Note: Issue order copy by 14.11.2016 TK To The Second Assistant Judge City Civil Court Chennai.
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
TK CRP (PD) NOS.3039, 3040 AND 3041 OF 2016 08.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in