1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.112 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 R.Thamotharakannan .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. K.Vellaichamy[Died] S/o.Koodandi .. Respondent/defendant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.06.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.348 of 2008 in Original Suit No.247 of 1991 by the District Munsif Court, Sattur. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 07.06.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.348 of 2008 in Original Suit No.247 of 1991 by the District Munsif Court, Sattur. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.247 of 1991 on the file of the Court below for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as sole defendant. The trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, appeal has been preferred in Appeal Suit No.18 of 1994 on the file of the first appellate Court and the same has been dismissed. Against the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, Second Appeal No.160 of 1996 has been preferred on the file of this Court and this Court has set aside the concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and ultimately remanded the suit to the file of the trial Court. During pendency of Second Appeal No.160 of 1996, the sole defendant (appellant) has passed away on 13.02.2002 and the factum of death of the sole defendant/appellant has not been brought on record. Under the said circumstances, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.348 of 2008 so as to pass a decree straight away without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant. The Court below has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has narrated the facts mentioned supra. The only grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner against the impugned order is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 that since the sole defendant has passed away on 13.02.2002 during pendency of Second Appeal No.160 of 1996 and therefore the Judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.160 of 1996 are nothing but nullity, the revision petitioner is entitled to get a decree straight away without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased sole defendant, but the Court below has failed to allow the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.348 of 2008. 4. For considering the submissions made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the relief sought for in the petition in question and the same reads as follows: "Therefore it is just and necessary that this hon'ble court is graciously pleased to straight away decree the suit in O.S.247/91 as prayed for, without requiring me to file a petition to implead the legal heirs of deceased sole appellant, or examine the Commissioner to mark his report and plan and thus render justice". 5. The Court below after considering the manner of relief couched in the petition in question has rightly dismissed the petition. Since the relief sought for in the petition is to pass a decree straight away without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased, the relief sought for in the petition cannot be granted and therefore the view taken by the Court below for dismissing the petition in question is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.348 of 2008 in Original Suit No.247 of 1991 by the District Munsif Court, Sattur is confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file proper petition, if law permits for getting proper remedies. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. smn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Crl side] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar The District Munsif, Sattur. +1 cc to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate SR.No.2638. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.112 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:22.01.2011 2P/3C RPB 01.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/