1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.267 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Ramakrishnan ..Revision Petitioner/ Petitioner/Respondent Vs. Vijayalakshmi .. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 13.12.2010 passed in Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010 by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur to be tried along with G.W.O.P.NO.27/08 for disposal in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Michael Bharathi ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 13.12.2010 passed in Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010 by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. 2. It is stated in the revision petition that the respondent herein as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar for getting a decree of divorce, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. Likewise, the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur so as to appoint him as guardian of minors and their properties. In order to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008 from the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar to the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, the revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the respondent as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar for getting a decree of divorce, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent and further the revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Court below, so as to appoint him as guardian of minors as well as their properties and under the said circumstances both proceedings must be tried together and in order to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008 from the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar to the file of the Court below, the present Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010 has been filed, but the Court below has dismissed the same and therefore the order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in the main petitions and also the nature of the order passed in Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 5. It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein as petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar for getting a decree of divorce, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent and likewise the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the Court below so as to appoint him as guardian of minors as well as their properties. Therefore it is needless to say that in both the proceedings the reliefs sought for are totally different and they are not identical and further the Sub Court, Virudhunagar is having original jurisdiction to entertain H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in both the proceedings and also considering that the proceedings need not be tried together, the present petition is totally unwarranted. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010 and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below 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 Tr.O.P.No.18 of 2010 by the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur is confirmed. However the Principal District Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur and the Sub Court, Virudhunagar are strictly directed to dispose of G.W.O.P.No.27 of 2008 and H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2008 before the end of June, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. The Registry is directed to send copies of this order to both Courts. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. smn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[P&A] /True copy/ To Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. 2.The Subordinate Judge Court, Virudhunagar. Copy to: The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Maudrai. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.267 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:14.02.2011 2P/4C RPB 28.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/