The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants 1 and 2 challenging the order and decreetal order dated 8.4.2009 passed in I.A.No.242 of 2009 in O.S.No.81 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangayam.
2. The first suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 is filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for partition and separate possession. Originally, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit before the Sub Court, Dharapuram in O.S.No.306 of 1999 and the same was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Kangayam and renumbered as O.S.No.81 of 2004. At present the suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 is on trial and witnesses have been examined. At that point of time, the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 filed the suit O.S.No.23 of 2009 for permanent injunction. I.A.No.242 of 2009 is also filed in O.S.No.81 of 2004 to joint trial of both the suits and that application was dismissed by the court below stating that in the first suit, trial has commenced, witnesses have been examined and therefore, there is no justification to take up both the cases for joint trial. In any event, the court below was of the view that if the first suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 is finally decided, then the need to decide the subsequent suit O.S.No.23 of 2009, which is filed only for permanent injunction will not be necessary and it can be decided then on its own merits.
3. As rightly pointed out by the court below, the suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 was filed in the year 1999. In the first suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 written statement has been filed, witnesses have been examined and the suit is at the fag end of the trial. In the later suit O.S.No.23 of 2009, the written statement itself is not filed. In such circumstances, the I.A.No.242 of 2009 filed in the suit of the year 1999 for partition and separate possession for joint trial along with the suit of the year 2009 for permanent injunction will only delay the adjudication of the first suit. Further, it is not stated that any interim order is passed in the second suit O.S.No.23 of 2009 which will affect the adjudication of the issue in the first suit. In such view of the matter, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the order of the court below dismissing the I.A.No.242 of 2009. The trial court shall dispose of the suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that certain observations made by the court below while dismissing the application will cause prejudice to the revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 in the trial of the suit O.S.No.81 of 2004. Needless to state that the observation of the court below while passing the order in I.A.No.242 of 2009 will have no bearing in the final adjudication of the suit. The suit O.S.No.81 of 2004 will be decided on its own merits based on the oral and documentary evidence on record.
5. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.