1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED 05.10.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos. 1 and 2 of 2010 1.Renjitham 2.Rajathi 3.Jothi 4.Revathi .. Appellants Vs G.Thangasarojini .. Respondent Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil in A.S.No.24 of 2007 dated 04.11.2009 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned First Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil in O.S.No.662 of 2004 dated 15.11.2006. For appellants : Mr.H.Velavadhass For respondent : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar J U D G M E N T The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the second plaintiff in the suit. Respondent/second plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.662 of 2004 before the Principal District Munsif, Nagarcoil, praying for the following reliefs: "a. For declaration of plaintiff's title and possession over the plaint schedule property. b. For setting aside the two sale deeds dated 30.12.1993 in favour of the Chellathurai son of Paaliah Nadar the first defendant's husband in so far as the sale deeds affect the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property. c. For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and d. costs of the suit" https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 The appellants/defendants have also filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and stated that the suit is devoid on merits and the same should be dismissed. After hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent herein/second plaintiff has filed an appeal to the Appellate Court in A.S.No.24 of 2007. The appellants/defendants also filed a counter and contended that the appeal is devoid on merits and the same should be dismissed. After hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, the Appellate Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same. Aggrieved by that order, the appellants/defendants have filed the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has vehemently contended that the Appellate Court ought not to have remitted the matter to the Trial Court. The Appellate Court ought to have considered the case on merits and disposed of the appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court is not in accordance with law and the same should be set aside. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/second plaintiff has submitted that the Appellate Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and correctly remitted the matter with a direction to take up the matter and dispose of the same. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Court is in accordance with law and the same should be confirmed. 4. Heard the counsel on either side and perused the documents available on record. The Appellate Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to take up the matter and dispose of the same. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants vehemently contended that the Appellate Court ought to have disposed of the matter on merits, instead of setting aside the order of the Trial Court and remitting the matter to the Trial Court. After considering the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside, with a direction to the Appellate Court to take up the appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2007 and dispose of the same after giving opportunity to both the parties so as to enable them to file any material evidence in support of their case, and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. Further, both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Appellate Court in disposing of A.S.No.24 of 2007 without taking unnecessary adjournments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 5. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil. 2.The First Additional District Munsif, Nagercoil copy to: The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +1cc to Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.40027 C.M.A.(MD)No.98 of 2010 05.10.2010 vsm SMA/27.10.2010/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/