1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRP Nos.1329 and 1520 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Madhavi :Petitioner in both C.R.Ps./Plaintiff -Vs- 1.Sengamalathamal 2.Jeyaraman 3.Vijaya Raghavan 4.Periya Kannan 5.Chinna Kannan 6.Sundaraj 7.Ayyappan 8.Dhanalakshmi 9.Rajeswari 10.Jeyalakshmi 11.Rajasekar 12.Lalitha 13.Venkatesh :Respondents in both C.R.Ps./Defendants Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.04.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.240 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2007 and the order dated 09.04.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.239 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. For Petitioner : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar in both C.R.Ps. For Respondents : Mr.A.Sivaji in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.239 and 240 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi. 2.The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.11 of 2007 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein on the side of the plaintiff, evidence has been let in and subsequently closed and in order to reopen the same for the purpose of send for the document, which is available in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, these petitions have been filed in Interlocutory Application Nos.239 and 240 of 2011. The Court below has dismissed the petitions. Against the dismissal orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in one of the suit properties as per the wish of the executant of the Will dated 20.01.1925, Mandagapdy is being performed and to that effect necessary documents are available in Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and in order to send for the same, these https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 petitions have been filed, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed both the petitions and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are liable to be interfered with. 4.In fact this Court has closely perused the relief sought for in the plaint, wherein two kinds of declarations have been sought for and bare injunction has been sought for as consequential relief. Nowhere in the relief column, it has been specifically prayed about the performance of Mandagapady, etc. The present suit has been instituted only on the basis of the Will dated 20.01.1995. Considering the fact that the entire plaint proceeds on the basis of the will dated 20.01.1995, the documents which are sought to be sent for, are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the rival claims made on either side. Therefore it is quite clear that these petitions are totally unwarranted. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petitions and there is no error in the orders passed by the Court below. 5.In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.239 and 240 of 2011 in Original Suit No.11 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi are confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The District Munsif, Sivakasi. +2CC to Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate. SR.No.44105 & 44268. smn RP/28.12.2011/2P/4C. COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.1329 and 1520 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 16.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/