1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.340 of 2011 Pitchammal .. Petitioner/Petitioner/Appellant Vs. 1.Andichi 2.The Commissioner, Office of the Panchayat Union, Melur – 625 016. 3.The District Collector, Madurai Collectorate, Madurai. .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 25.11.2009 passed in Interlocutory Application No.19 of 2009 in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 by the Principal District Court, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Vadivelan ORDER The impugned order dated 25.11.2009 passed in Interlocutory Application No.19 of 2009 in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 by the Principal District Court, Madurai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.445 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for mandatory injunction. The trial Court has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner/appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Court, Madurai. The Principal District Court, Madurai has allowed Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 and thereby set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Original Suit No.445 of 1991. The Principal District Court, Madurai has given a relief to the extent that the defendants 2 and 3 should change House Tax Assessment in the name of the revision petitioner/appellant and subsequently the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.19 of 2009 under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to amend the decree in accordance with the result of Appeal Suit No.10 of 2004. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the Judgment passed in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 as well as the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.19 of 2009, notice need not be sent to the respondents and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that Original Suit No.445 of 1991 has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and also for mandatory injunction and the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the same, but the appellate Court has set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for, but the decree passed in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 is not in consonance with the result of the Judgment passed in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 and the same is nothing but an omission and under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to set aside. 5. For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.445 of 1991 as well as the relief granted in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994. In Original Suit No.445 of 1991, five reliefs have been sought for. The main reliefs are to declare that the revision petitioner/appellant/ plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and first defendant should be directed to hand over vacant possession of the same. The last relief sought for in Original Suit No.445 of 1991 is to direct the defendants 2 and 3 to change House Tax Assessment in the name of the revision petitioner/appellant/plaintiff. The trial Court has dismissed the suit in toto. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 has been preferred on the file of the Court below. The Court below has allowed the same and set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. But however the Court below has granted only the last relief sought for in the plaint. In fact in the result column of the Judgment rendered in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994, no mention has been made with regard to other reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.445 of 1991. Considering the fact that no mention has been made with regard to other reliefs in the result column of the Judgment rendered in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994, the Court cannot consider that in the decree passed in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994, an omission has occurred. The only remedy which is available to the revision petitioner is to file an appeal against the disallowed portion and further the present petition has been filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. In view of the discussion made earlier, the present petition cannot be allowed and the Court below after considering the nature of the relief granted in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 has rightly dismissed the present petition and 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. 7. 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.19 of 2009 in Appeal Suit No.10 of 1994 by the Principal District Court, Madurai is confirmed.However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal against disallowed portion. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Principal District Judge, Madurai. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.340 of 2011 24.02.2011 smn RJ/10.3.11 3p/2c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/