Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
2. This Civil revision petition has been directed against the order passed in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 in E.P.No.1593 of 2005 in O.S.No.6016 of 2001 on the file of IX Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Chennai. The revision petitioner is the third respondent/third party in E.A.No.4448 of 2006.
3. The learned Senior Counsel would state that the third party General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai is neither a party to the suit in O.S.No.6016 of 2001 nor a party in E.P.No.1593 of 2005,only in E.A.No.4448 of 2006, the decree holder/first respondent had arrayed as third party/General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai as respondent and in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 in E.P.No.1593 of 2005 in O.S.No.6016 of 2001, an exparte order against R3/third party General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai was passed by the execution Court on 27.9.2006. Against which the third party-General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai had preferred C.R.P(NPD) No.538 of 2007 in which this Court has allowed the said Civil revision petition setting aside the exparte order passed in E.A.4448 of 2006 in O.S.No.1593 of 2005 against the third party/General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai directing the Execution Court to give an opportunity to the third party-General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai/third respondent in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 to file his counter and then to decide the E.A. on merits. Even thereafter, the learned Execution Court had allowed E.A.No.4448 of 2006 against the third party with an observation that only the Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F. Southern Railway has filed the counter and the third party/third respondent/General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai has not filed the counter. Further it is pertinent to note that even the counter filed by the Chief Security Commissioner, RPF Railway was not taken into consideration by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai while disposing of the E.A.No.4448 of 2006 on 31.10.2008.
4. The grievance of the learned Senior counsel is that even as per the G.O.E(G) 82 LL2/2(B) dated 4.5.1992, the Government of India has authorised about 87 personnels of the Railways to file counter on behalf of the Union of India and Railways and that the Chief Security Commissioner came under Sl.No.20(Page 1 of the typed set of papers). So the finding of the Execution Court/IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai that the Chief Security Commissioner RPF Southern Railway is not competent to file counter on behalf of the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai/third party cannot be sustainable. Further E.P. against the third respondent in E.P.No.1593 of 2005/General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai who is neither a party to the suit nor in Execution petition is maintainable or not? was also not considered by the Execution Court.
5. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 in E.P.No.1593 of 2005 in O.S.No.6016 of 2001 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned execution Court with a direction to consider afresh within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the service of R1 to R3 has not been effected sofar. But, we are not disposing of E.A.No.4448 of 2006,since this Court has exercised power under
Article 227 of Constitution of India, it is no bar to remand the same for fresh consideration by the Court below, on the basis of the material defects pointed out by the Senior counsel on the face of the record.
15.4.2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes sg To Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai C.R.P(NPD)No.493/2009 C.R.P(NPD)Nos.783 &784/2009 A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J In fine, this civil revision petitions are allowed and the order passed by the first appellate Judge in C.M.A.No. 13 of 2008 in I.A.No.1137 of 2007 in O.S.No.908 of 2007 and C.M.A.No.11 of 2008 in I.A.No.1138 of 2007 in O.S.No.908 of 2007 respectively on the file of Additional District Munsif No.1, Salem is set aside only in respect of the direction regarding the removal of the plaint from the file of the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Court is directed to restore O.S.No.908 of 2007 on its file, after restoration, the defendants are entitled to file a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. On such filing of the petition, the learned trial Judge is directed to consider the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the defendants and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter.No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.
03.04.2009sg C.R.P.NPD.Nos.783 &784 of 2009 M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009 A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J This matter came up today under the caption "For Being Mentioned"
2.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. No representation for the respondents. The grievance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that this Court while disposing of CRP.NPD.No.783 and 784 of 2009 has given a liberty to the defendants to file the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and has further directed the trial Court to dispose of the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to be filed by the defendants on merits within a period of two months. But incase, the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is dismissed, then the trial Court should have been directed to dispose of O.S.No.908 of 2007 also within two months.
3.Under such circumstances, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of O.S.No.908 of 2007 also, incase if the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to be filed by the defendants is dismissed, within two months thereafter. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that so far the defendants have not filed A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, J.
any petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Under such circumstances, the defendants are directed to file the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC within ten days from today, failing which, the learned trial Judge shall proceed with the suit and dispose of the same within two months thereafter.
13.04.2009 ssv NOTE :- Issue Today.
C.R.P.NPD.Nos.783 &784 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009