The plaintiffs in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 are the civil revision petitioners before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.3056 of 2013 in O.S.No.5862 of 2004, dated 09.10.2013, on the file of the learned II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that they have filed the suit in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 and other suits in O.S.Nos.1726 and 5792 of 2006. Therefore, the petitioners were filed I.A.No.3056 of 2013 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to order of joint trial in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 along with other two suits in O.S.Nos.1726 and 5792 of 2006, on the file of the very same Court viz., the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, on the ground that all the three suits were filed by the same property and the parties and the counsel are one and the same. The petitioners also states that in order to avoid the different decisions on the same property and the issue in the other two suits pertains to the same and they prayed for a joint trial of the three suits.
3. Though, there are five respondents in the suit in the Interlocutory Application, but the respondents 1 to 3 remain exparte and R4 has not filed any counter. Whereas, the 5th respondent has filed counter stating that he has not having any knowledge about the Original Suits in O.S.No.1726 of 2006 and O.S.No.5792 of 2006 and contended that in the present suit in O.S.No.5862 of 2004, the entire evidence was taken by both the parties and the Commissioner was also appointed and he has filed report. The other suits are not known about the stage. Therefore, they stated that there is no question of joint trial of three suits. Therefore, the 5th respondent prayed the trial Court viz., the IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dismiss the application.
4. Considering both side cases, the learned IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissed the said petition in I.A.No.3056 of 2013 on 09.10.2013, on the ground that the suit in O.S.No.5862 of 2004, the evidence of both side was over in the year 2006 and the matter was posted for arguments. Therefore, when the evidence was over on both sides, there was no question of joint trial in O.S.No.1726 of 2006 and O.S.No.5792 of 2006, since the stage of the other two suits are entirely different in the present suit in O.S.No.5862 of 2004. The learned Judge also states that the parties to the suits were different in both suits. Therefore, only with an aim of the drag on the proceedings, the petitioners/plaintiffs in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 filed this application, which is no merits in this petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. Challenging the said order dated 09.10.2013 in I.A.No.3056 of 2013, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs.
5. I heard Mrs.P.T.Asha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and perused the records.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 has filed in the year 2004 and when I perused the entire records, it is found that even in the year 2006 itself evidence on both side was over, when the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present application for dragging the proceedings and he successfully dragged the proceedings from the year 2013, he has come forward with the present application in I.A.No.3056 of 2013 for joint trial in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 along with O.S.No.1726 of 2006 and O.S.No.5792 of 2006, pending before the same Court.
7. When the suit was filed in the year 2004 and the evidence was over in the year 2006 itself, how the petitioners filed the present petition in the year 2013 for joint trial along with other suits, which were filed in the year 2006. Apart from this, there is no evidence to show that how the other suits are connected with the present suit and not produced any records in this regard.
8. When the suit in O.S.No.5862 of 2004, the entire evidence on both side was over in the year 2006 itself, there is no question arosed for the Court for joint trial along with the other two suits in O.S.Nos.1726 and 5792 of 2006.
9. The order of the learned Judge correctly pointed out only to drag the proceedings, which was filed by the petitioners in the year 2004, he successfully dragged the proceedings for the past 13 years. Therefore, the order passed by the learned IInd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is well considered order and there is no necessity for interfering by this Court in the said order, and accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be set aside. Since in another Civil Revision Petition Nos.4464 and 4465 of 2013, I already direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.5862 of 2004 within a period of 15 days. Therefore, there is no further order is required in this case for directing the trial Court to expeditious the suit.
10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.03.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 20.07.2017 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No vs To The II Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs CRP(PD)No.4127 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 03.03.2017