This revision has been filed by the petitioner to direct the District Munsif Court, Panruti to dispose of I.A.No.387 of 2004 in O.S.No.126 of 2000 expeditiously pending on its file.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit being O.S.No.211 of 1987 originally filed on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore for partition and separate possession of his 2/3rd share in the suit items 1 and 2 and half share in suit item No.3.
3. By a preliminary decree dated 23.3.1990, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to 2/3rd share in suit items 1 and 2 and half share in suit item No.3 and he was also entitled to get a sum of Rs.2500/- towards past mesne profits. As far as future mesne profits was concerned, it was open to the plaintiff to take separate proceedings.
4. Pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 23.3.1990, the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.541 of 1990 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore for passing final decree and to appoint an advocate commissioner to work out the terms of the preliminary decree and allot the plaintiff such shares.
5. In I.A.No.541 of 1990, some of the respondents/defendants died and their legal heirs were brought on record as party respondents/defendants in the final decree petition (I.A.No.541 of 1990). After an enquiry, in I.A.No.541 of 1990, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide the suit properties and to allot share in favour of the plaintiff as per the decree and the Advocate Commissioner has inspected the suit property and suggested allotment of shares to the plaintiff by way filing his report dated 10.4.1991.
6.I heard Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.R.Meenal, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 and 9 and perused the entire materials available on record.
7. On a perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that as against the preliminary decree and judgment dated 23.3.1990 passed in O.S.No.211 of 1987, the deceased first defendant filed A.S.No.1259 of 1990 before this Court, wherein stay of operation of the final proceedings was granted and the same was noted by the trial Court concerned periodically.
8. Thereafter, when I.A.No.541 of 1990 was listed before the Principal Sub-Court, Cuddalore, as per the Circular of the District Court, Cuddalore in A.No.21 of 2004, dated 11.1.2004, the I.A.No.541 of 1990 has been transferred to the file District Munsif Court, Panruti under Act 1 of 2004 and the same was re-numbered as I.A.No.387 of 2004 in O.S.No.126 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time for production of stay order copy. Recording that the appeal was pending before the High Court, the District Munsif, Panruti adjourned I.A.No.387 of 2004 from time to time.
9. It is seen that by the judgment dated 22.3.2006, A.S.No.1259 of 1990 came to be dismissed by the High Court holding that the plaintiff became entitled to 2/3 share in items 1 and 2 and the first defendant became entitled to = share each in item No.3 of the suit property and separate possession. As far as the past mesne profits awarded by the trial Court is concerned, the first appelate Court confirmed the decree. Thereafter, the 12th respondent in I.A.No.387 of 2004 reported dead and since other legal heirs were already on record, the same was recorded and thereafter, also the District Munsif, Panruti adjourned I.A.No.387 of 2004 from time to time and still the said I.A.No.384 of 2004 is pending.
10. On further perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that the second respondent in I.A.No.387 of 2004 had also filed objection to the Advocate Commissioner's report.
11. Now the petitioner has filed the present revision seeking directions on the learned District Munsif Court, Panruti to expedite I.A.No.387 of 2004 for disposal contending that the first appellate Court has confirmed the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court as early as on 22.3.2006 and there could be no defence in the final decree petition except regarding allotment and quantum of mesne profits. No material has been produced by the respondents/defendants to show that as against the judgment of the first appellate Court, they have preferred any further appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. Having regard to the fact that the final decree proceedings initiated by the plaintiff was pending for more than 20 years and the Advocate Commissioner filed his report way back on 10.4.1991 and also the respondents have filed their objection to the Advocate Commissioner's report, it is open to the District Munsif, Panruti to dispose of I.A.No.387 of 2004 pending on his file. Keeping I.A.No.387 of 2004 any further would definitely cause prejudice to the plaintiff, who obtained preliminary decree way back in the year 1990. Therefore, the District Munsif, Panruti is directed to dispose of I.A.No.387 of 2004 in O.S.No.126 of 2000 (I.A.No.541 of 1990 in O.S.No.211 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore) pending on his file within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after notice to all concerned.
13. With the above observation and direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
30.01.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 03.10.2018 Index : Yes/No To The District Munsif Court, Panruti.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs C.R.P.(PD) No.138 of 2011 30.01.2017