The revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 05.03.2008 in I.A.No.1638 of 2007 in I.A.No.519 of 2006 in O.S.No.196 of 1992 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode in allowing the application filed by the respondents/petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 under Section 151 of C.P.C. to eschew and set aside the endorsement made on behalf of them on 24.4.2007 and to grant permission to file a detailed counter.
2.The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.1638 of 2007, has inter alia opined that 'by offering opportunity to the parties the same will not amount to procedural irregularity and resultantly, allowed the application without costs.'
3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the I.A.No.1638 of 2007 to eschew the endorsement made by the counsel, no objection in filing counter to I.A.No.519 of 2006 and the same is a material irregularity and also against law and in fact, the present application has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and harass the petitioner, since the said application lacks bonafides and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition to prevent an aberration of justice.
4.This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed their rival contentions.
5.A perusal of the averments in affidavit in I.A.No.1638 of 2007 filed by the first respondent/first petitioner/first defendant herein, it is quite evident that 'due to an undue influence exercised on them by the respondents 1 to 7 herself and her family members have not pressed the A.S.No.232 of 2003 on the file of Sub Court, Namakkal and also due to the threat given by the petitioners /respondents they have been forced to enter into a registered partition deed dated 10.10.2005 whereunder wrong allotment of shares have been made etc. and moreover, they are appearing through the present counsel and after engaging him they have come to know that on their behalf an endorsement has been made in the final decree application in I.A.No.519 of 2005 in O.S.No.196 of 1992 and they also pray that the endorsement made on their behalf by the counsel that they have no counter may be eschewed and set aside.
6.Before the trial Court, in the counter filed by the second petitioner herein/second respondent, it is categorically mentioned that it is false to state that an endorsement so made has come to be known only on 12.12.2007 and that the said endorsement is correct and therefore, it is not open to respondents to question the same and their action is hit by the principal of estoppel and the respondents cannot be allowed to file any more counter in the matter and that a final decree will have been passed relating to in Ambulian thottam in S.F.No.134 and Sakli Kadu in S.F.No.130/1 and that the aspect of eschewing the averments already made is unknown to law and in fact, the respondents is bound by the endorsement made by counsel on 24.4.2007 etc.
7.The trial Court upon hearing the parties has come to a resultant conclusion that 'by giving opportunities to the parties will not amount to a procedural irregularity and has allowed the I.A. without costs.' A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1638 of 2007 indicates that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in a proper and effective way and the same cannot be construed by no stretch of imagination that it suffers from any arbitrariness or otherwise and further a Court of law has to brush aside the technical considerations and will have to deliver substantial justice to parties and by adopting a liberal and meaningful approach and looking at from any angle the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the trial Court is found to be correct, requiring no interference in the hands of this Court sitting in revision and resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
8.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The respondents are directed to file their counter to the I.A.No.519 of 2006 within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Court and the trial Court in any event is directed to dispose of the final decree application which includes the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner etc. within four months thereafter from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court without fail.
sgl To
1.The District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar, Judicial Section, High Court, Madras