Sundari v. Muthian
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR CRP (MD).No.1 of 2009 and M.P(MD).No. 1 of 2009
1. Sundari
2. Ramakrishnan
3. Selvan
4. James : Petitioners / Defendants / Petitioners Vs.
1. Muthian
2. Jeya @ Jearsonwels (died)
3. Stalin Kumar
4. Thankappan (R1, R3 and R4 are recorded as LRs of the deceased R2 as per the memo dated 29.09.2016) : Respondents / plaintiffs 1 to 3 & 5/ Respondents Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.07.2008 made by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in I.A.No.64 of 2008 in O.S.No.41 of 2008. For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Thampi For respondent : Mr.K.Sree Kumaran Nair
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.07.2008 made by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in I.A.No.64 of 2008 in O.S.No.41 of 2008.
2. According to the revision petitioners, the respondents herein have filed a suit in O.S.No. 41 of 2008 for a decree of demarcation and permanent injunction of the suit property. In the aforesaid suit, the revision petitioners have filed I.A.No.64 of 2008 for directing the plaintiffs 2 and 3 / respondents 2 and 3 to appear before the Court to verify the signatures in the plaint and to dismiss the suit on the ground that their signatures had been forged in the Vakalat and plaint. According to the petitioners, that the second plaintiff left the suit locality about 2 1⁄2 years ago and his whereabouts is not known. Insofar as the third respondent / third plaintiff is concerned, he was working in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Maldives for the last more than 1 1⁄2 years. Therefore, the application was filed for verification of the signatures but unfortunately, the said Interlocutory Application was simply dismissed without considering the case of the petitioners stating that the suit itself is listed for trial. In such circumstaces, the peititoners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is an admitted fact that second respondent / plaintiff who is the party in suit proceedings died leaving behind the respondents 1, 3 and 4 as his legal heris and the aforesaid legal heirs are already on record and to that extent a memo has been filed by the revision petitioners. The learned counsel for the third respondent failry submitted that third respondent / third plaintiff is ready to appear before the Courts below subject to the convenient date given by the Court below.
4. Recording the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the order passed in I.A.No.64 of 2008 dated 22.07.2008 is hereby set aside and remitted back to the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to consider the appearance of the third respondent/third plaintiff in the light of the submission made by the counsel for the third respondent / plaintiff.
5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
Copy To:
The Record Keeper, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.K.N.THAMPI, Advocate, SR No. 67400 +1 CC to M/s.K.SREE KUMARAN NAIR, Advocate, SR No. 67661 TRP PSM/MR/21.02.2017/2P/5C CRP (MD).No.1 of 2009 and M.P(MD).No. 1 of 2009 09.11.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/