The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.366 of 2010. The said suit has been filed with a prayer to declare that the decree passed in O.S.No.526 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai is null and void; to declare that the plaintiff’s title to the suit property and to grant consequential relief of delivery of vacant peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property to the plaintiff and for other reliefs.
2. In the said suit, respondents/defendants filed written statement. After framing issues, the trial court proceeded with the trial. At that time, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.925 of 2014 in the suit in O.S.No.366 of 2010, praying to permit her to withdraw the above suit with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
3. The averments made in the petition for withdrawal of the suit is that during the pendency of the suit, with regard to deceased Muniyan, legal Page.No.2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.PD.No.749 of 2018 heir certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai, in which, 16 members are arrayed as legal heirs. According to the plaintiff, she being an illiterate, she thought she is the sole heir and hence, not added the other legal heirs as parties to the suit. Since, impleadment of all the legal heirs is necessary to maintain a suit, the plaintiff seeks permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action.
4. According to the contesting respondents, written statement has been filed and after taking adjournment in the suit, the petition has been filed to withdraw the suit.
5. Learned Judge, elaborately discussed the averments in the I.A., and the counter filed by the 4th defendant and also given clear findings that the reasons put forth by the plaintiff for the withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit are not sufficient for the court to accept and to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty. The averments made in the petition in I.A., is that after the death of Munian, who died on 16.10.1932, the plaintiff came to know the legal heirs of the said Munian only in the Page.No.3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.PD.No.749 of 2018 year 2014 and hence she need to implead the legal heirs, which reason was not accepted by the court. Further, it is observed by the learned Judge that in the suit, examination of witnesses on the side of plaintiff was over. On the side of defendants, 4th defendant had been examined and when the case was posted for the cross examination of defendant side witness, after taking number of adjournments, the I.A., has been filed seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty, which petition has no merits and the citations relied on the side of plaintiff, has no application on the facts and holding so, dismissed the said I.A.
6. In the considered opinion of this court, the order passed by the learned Judge dismissing the I.A., filed by the plaintiff is a reasoned order and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the said findings. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
Page.No.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.PD.No.749 of 2018 J.NISHA BANU,J.
Nvsri C.R.P.PD.No.749 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.3791 of 2018 29.08.2022 Page.No.6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis