Skip to content


Lakshmana Perumal Vs. Deivanai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 2151 of 2016
Judge
AppellantLakshmana Perumal
RespondentDeivanai and Others
Excerpt:
.....suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. thereafter the same respondent has filed the present suit in o.s.no.2 of 2013, on the file of the additional district court, ramanathapuram for partition and for permanent injunction. in the aforesaid suit, dispute regarding 'a' schedule property is already decided. therefore, the said schedule property is barred under order 2 rule 2 of civil procedure code. against the return made in the above said i.a., the present civil revision has been filed before this court. 3. the above said i.a was returned by the trial court for the reasons as stated above. even though the court below returned the papers for the said reasons, however, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue raised by the revision.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the order of return dated 12.09.2016 passed in unnumbered I.A.SR.No.670 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram and further to direct the trial Court to take the application on file and number the same.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the order of return, dated 12.09.2016 passed in un-numbered I.A.SR.No.670 of 2016 in O.S.No.2 of 2013, on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram, wherein, it has been stated that:

12.09.2016

Return:

''Since, the Petitioner/second defendant stated in his written statement about non-seeking of relief against ''A'' schedule property in O.S.No.60 of 2010 by plaintiff, how can be file separate petition to be stated.''

2. According to the Petitioner, earlier suit has been filed for permanent injunction in O.S.No.60 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram and the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Thereafter the same respondent has filed the present suit in O.S.No.2 of 2013, on the file of the Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram for partition and for permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit, dispute regarding 'A' schedule property is already decided. Therefore, the said schedule property is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. Against the return made in the above said I.A., the present Civil Revision has been filed before this Court.

3. The above said I.A was returned by the trial Court for the reasons as stated above. Even though the Court below returned the papers for the said reasons, however, taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue raised by the revision petitioner in the application filed under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C always be considered at the time of framing of issues by the trial Court. Hence at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Civil Revision Petition and thus the revision fails.

4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //