1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.08.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.769 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Lyla Christobel ..Appellant(Petitioner/Applicant) Vs. 1.State rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Competent Authority and the District Revenue Officer, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 3.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing – II, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. ..Respondents/Respondents/Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 against the order dated 23.03.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 in Original Application No.6 of 2008 by the Additional District Court/Special Court [Constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997], Madurai. For Appellant .. Mr.M.Vivekanandamurthy For Respondents .. Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader JUDGMENT The impugned order dated 23.03.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 in Original Application No.6 of 2008 by the Additional District Court/Special Court [Constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997], Madurai is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 2 and 3 on the basis of the complaint alleged to have been given against the petitioner and her husband, have conducted investigation and subsequently filed a final report and the same has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.52 of 2005 and subsequently re-numbered as Calendar Case No.91 of 2008. During pendency of the same, the appellant (third accused) as petitioner has filed Original Application No.6 of 2008 praying to raise ad-interim attachment. During pendency of Original Application No.6 of 2008, the appellant/ petitioner/third accused has filed the petition in question in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 praying to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to remove the seal put on the residential premises situates at Door No.10/42-A, Nithiravilai, Kollankodu Road. 3. The Court below after considering the averments made in the petition as well as in the counter has dismissed Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 stating that in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008, totally 46 witnesses have been examined and the present petition has been filed with oblique motive of protracting the proceedings in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner as appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner has contended that one Sathya Bankers has been shown as first accused and its sole proprietor, husband of the appellant/petitioner viz., Sathyadas has been arrayed as second accused and the appellant/ petitioner has been shown as third accused and she has no connection whatsoever with the first accused and she has been falsely implicated in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008 and the respondents 2 and 3 have unnecessarily attached the properties, which belong to the appellant/petitioner and they have also unnecessarily sealed the house mentioned in the petition and in order to remove the same, the present petition has been filed and for the purpose of proving the exclusive ownership of the appellant/petitioner, so many documents have been filed, but the Court below without marking the documents filed on the side of the appellant/petitioner, has erroneously given a finding that the present petition has been filed with a view to protract the entire proceedings in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008 and ultimately dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008, totally 46 witnesses have been examined and only on the basis of involvement of the appellant/petitioner in the alleged crime, a final report has been filed and the present petition has been field only with a view to protract the entire proceedings in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008 and the Court below after considering the evil design of the appellant/ petitioner has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below does not require any interference. 6. As expounded earlier in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008, Sathya Bankers, Sathyadas, husband of the petitioner and the petitioner have been arrayed as accused. In Calendar Case No.91 of 2008, 46 witnesses have been examined as seen from the observation made in the impugned order. During pendency of Calendar Case No.91 of 2008, Original Application No.6 of 2008 has been filed so as to raise ad-interim attachment. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2009 so as to remove the seal put up by the respondents 2 and 3 in the house mentioned in the petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. The Court below has dismissed Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 mainly on the ground that the petitioner has also been shown as one of the accused in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008 and in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008 totally 46 witnesses have been examined and only with a view to protract the entire proceedings in Calendar Case No.91 of 2008, the present petition has been filed. 8. The sum and substance of the contention urged on the side of the appellant/petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the house mentioned in the petition and in order to prove her exclusive ownership, so many documents have been filed, but the Court below has failed to look into the same. 9. In fact, this Court has scanned the entire impugned order and found that no documents have been marked on either side. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader has contended that the appellant/ petitioner is also one of the partners of the first accused. But to prove the same, no document has been filed. Therefore it goes without saying that the Court below has passed the entire order only on the basis of the stage of Calendar Case No.91 of 2008 without looking into the rival contentions raised on either side and also without looking into the documents filed on the side of the appellant/petitioner. To put it in short, the impugned order has not been passed on merit. Since the impugned order has not been passed on the basis of merit, it is needless to say that the same is liable to be set aside and Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 is liable to be remitted to the file of the Court below. 11. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 in Original Application No.6 of 2008 by the Additional District Court/Special Court [Constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997], Madurai is set aside and Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 in Original Application No.6 of 2008 is remitted to the file of the Court below. The Court below is directed to mark all the documents filed on the side of the appellant/petitioner. The respondents are also at liberty to file relevant documents. The court below is also directed to dispose of Interlocutory Application No.30 of 2008 in Original Application No.6 of 2008 on merit before 07.09.2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 To The Additional District Court/ Special Court [Constituted under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997], Madurai. Copy to:- The Section Ofiicer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (For watching the report) smn rl/3c – 18.8.2011 C.M.A(MD)No.769 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 10.08.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/