Skip to content


Mannai Narayanasamy Educational Trust, represented by its President and Manager Thanjavur District and Others Vs. Dr. Rathika Rani and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(PD)(MD)No. 2152 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 10054 of 2016
Judge
AppellantMannai Narayanasamy Educational Trust, represented by its President and Manager Thanjavur District and Others
RespondentDr. Rathika Rani and Others
Excerpt:
.....order made in i.a.no.27 of 2016 in r.c.o.p.no.12 of 2007, dated 22.9.2016, on the file of the rent controller-cum-district munsif, thanjavur.) 1. this revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in i.a.no.27 of 2016 in r.c.o.p.no.12 of 2007, dated 22.09.2016, on the file of the rent controller-cum-district munsif, thanjavur. 2. according to the petitioner, the above said r.c.o.p was filed by the respondent herein in r.c.o.p.no.12 of 2007 before the rent controller-cum-district munsif, thanjavur seeking to fix the rent in respect of the property rented out to the petitioner's educational institutions. during the pendency of the r.c.o.p, the respondent herein filed i.a.no.18 of 2008 seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in R.C.O.P.No.12 of 2007, dated 22.9.2016, on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Thanjavur.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 in R.C.O.P.No.12 of 2007, dated 22.09.2016, on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Thanjavur.

2. According to the Petitioner, the above said R.C.O.P was filed by the respondent herein in R.C.O.P.No.12 of 2007 before the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Thanjavur seeking to fix the rent in respect of the property rented out to the Petitioner's educational institutions. During the pendency of the R.C.O.P, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.18 of 2008 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and take measurements of the property, with the assistance of a Government Engineer. The above said I.A was allowed and one S.Murugesan, Advocate was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and to submit a report before the learned Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif on 04.06.2013. According to the Petitioner, the report of the Engineer is not correct and fixation of rent for the said property is excessive and hence the Petitioner has filed a memo of objection on 29.08.2013. In the above circumstances, the Petitioner has filed I.A.No.27 of 2016 seeking to re-open and recall the witness by name G.V.Krishna, who is the original owner of the said property in order to assess the age of the property and to arrive at a correct rent for the said property. The said application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

4. A perusal of the order made in I.A.No.27 of 2016 passed by the Court below would clearly state in para 11 of the order that four witnesses have been examined on the side of the Petitioner and R.W.1 was examined on the side of the respondent on 16.07.2015 and thereafter for taking additional witness on the side of the respondents, the case was posted from 7.8.2015 to 3.8.2016, totally about 26 adjournments has been granted in the aforesaid R.C.O.P. The Petitioner as well as respondent's side evidence was closed and posted on 10.8.2016 for arguments. Thereafter, written argument was filed on the side of the Petitioner and at this stage, the present application has been filed by the revision Petitioner to re-open and recall the evidence of Mr.G.V.Krishna, who is the original owner of the property.

5. A perusal of the records would show that the Court below has given sufficient opportunity to the respondent for producing the evidence and for examination of the witness on the side of the respondent. In-spite of that, the respondent has not chosen to examine any other witness. Thereafter only, the evidence on both side was closed and posted the case for arguments on 10.08.2016. Hence, the evidence of petitioner and respondent's side evidence was concluded, the arguments on the side of the Petitioner as well as the respondent was advanced before the Court below. Therefore, the present application filed by the petitioner to re-open and recall the evidence of one G.V.Krishna, who is the original owner of the property cannot be entertained by this Court and thus the revision fails.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.


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