V. Panchavarnam, v. P. Jothi,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.09.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI and in C.R.P(MD).No.1382 of 2022 V.Panchavarnam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.P.Jothi 2.V.Kannan

...Respondents

PRAYER: Review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 114 of CPC, review against the order dated 13.12.2022 in C.R.P(MD).No.1382 of 2022 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Prabhakaran For Respondents : Mr.R.Velmurugan for R1 & R2

O R D E R

This review application is preferred against the order dated 13.12.2023 in C.R.P(MD).Nos. 1381 & 1382 of 2022 on the file of this Court. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner/plaintiff and petitioner in C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1381 &1382 of 2022 would submit that, this 1/6

Court in its order dated 13.12.2023 in the above revision petition ought to have seen the provision under the Code enabling to strike of the scandalous allegation made by the respondent. But this Court simply passed a cryptic order which is liable to be interfered. Hence, prayed for reviewing the order dated 13.12.2023 passed by this Court in C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1381 &1382 of 2022.

3.The above revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the order in I.A.Nos.509 & 510 of 2021 in O.S.No.234 of 2018 dated 06.04.2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. The said applications were filed by the petitioner to strike of the allegations contained in the written statement by invoking order VI Rule 16 of CPC and to strike of issue No.4 framed by the trial Court. However, the trial Court dismissed the above applications in I.A.Nos.509 and 510 of 2021 in O.S.No.234 of 2018 dated 06.04.2022. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred a revision petition which was also dismissed by this Court on 13.12.2023 by stating that the marital status of the plaintiff has to be established at the time of trial and that the trial Court has rightly framed issue No.4 and therefore, the same cannot be construed as scandalous and frivolous. The scanned reproduction of the said order is as follows:

2/6

3/6

4/6

4.It means that the marital status of the plaintiff who herself claims to be the 2nd wife of one C.Veeraiah, father of the respondent/defendant has to be established at the time of trial. All contentions raised in this review petition are only reproducing the arguments putforth in the revision petition. Therefore, I find no error on the face of record or any clerical mistake in the order passed by this Court on 13.12.2023 in C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1381 & 1382 of 2022. This Court makes it clear that the petitioner/plaintiff is not precluded from raising all his contentions before the trial Court with regard to the marital status of the plaintiff.

5.Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed. 19.09.2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vsn To 1.The VI Additional District Judge, Madurai 5/6

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J., vsn in C.R.P(MD).No.1382 of 2022 19.09.2024 6/6