Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
The grievance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the Deputy Registrar of Chits has passed an exparte order in A.R.C.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J District Registrar,Arakkonam District. To set aside the exparte order, the revision petitioner had filed unnumbered I.A in A.R.C.No.2 of 2004 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. But without considering the said application, the District Registrar had returned the same even without numbering the interlocutory application with an observation that the remedy open to the petitioner is to file an appeal. Admittedly, the order passed in A.R.C.No.2 of 2004 is not a contested one. There is no bar in the Chits Funds Act 1982 to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner.
2. In fine, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order passed in unnumbered I.A. In A.R.C.No.2 of 2004 is set aside (impugned order). The Deputy Registrar of Chits, Arakkonam is directed to restore unnumbered I.A. In A.R.C.No.2 of 2004 to his file and to dispose of the same in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16.4.2009 Index:Yes Internet:Yes sg Note: Issue order copy today(16.4.2009) C.R.P(NPD)No.907/2009 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