Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 95502 (MAD)

A.MOHAMED RAFFEE v. V.VAIDEHI

CRP/4240/2025 · 2025-09-25

M Jothiraman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRP No.4240 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-09-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN CRP No.4240 of 2025 and CMP No.21807 of 2025 A.Mohamed Raffee S/o.M.S.Abdul Majeed, MSM Tower, No.3 Yadawal Street, Chennai-Thiruvallur Road, Padi, Chennai - 600 050 also at Door No.46 New No.2, Varasithivinayagarkoil Street, Ground and 1st Floor, First Stage, Chinmaya Nagar, Chennai - 600 092. Petitioner(s)/Defendant(s) Vs V.Vaidehi W/o.B.Veerasami, Plot No.68-69, Royal Greens, Pudi Village, Tada Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh 524 401, now temporarily residing at No.20/3 Bagirathai Amman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Respondent(s)/Plaintiff(s) Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 12-06-2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1698 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.4240 of 2025 Chennai. For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): Ms.S.P.Pavithra for Mr.R.Gopinath Mr.C.Kasirajan ORDER Challenging the docket order dated 12-06-2025 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1698 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, the revision petitioner/defendant has preferred the present petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has preferred the suit for eviction against the revision petitioner/defendant directing him to quit and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property and also directing him to pay the outstanding rental due. The revision/petitioner has filed his written statement and necessary issues were framed. On the side of the respondent/plaintiff, her power agent was examined as PW1 and certain documents were also marked. PW1 was cross-examined in full. After completion of respondent's/plaintiff’s side evidence, the case was posted for revision petitioner's/defendant's side evidence. At that stage, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1698 of 2024 under Order XIV Rule 5(1) r/w Section 151 CPC 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.4240 of 2025 seeking to frame as many as seven additional issues in the suit. The Court below on 09.06.2025 has questioned the maintainable of that application and posted the case on 12.06.2025. On 12.06.2025, the Court below has passed the following docket order: “Petitioner counsel present. Pass over at 3.00 p.m. Petitioner called absent. Respondent counsel present. Hence, petition dismissed as not maintainable.” 3. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/defendant has preferred the present petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant would submit that the revision petitioner/defendant has filed the written statement with detailed pleadings. However, the Court below dismissed the said application as not maintainable without affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner/defendant. Therefore, an opportunity may be provided for the revision petitioner/defendant to put forth his submissions. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that that respondent's/plaintiff’s side evidence had already been completed and the case was posted for revision petitioner's/defendant's side evidence. At that stage, an application came to be 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.4240 of 2025 filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings. The Court below after perusing the pleadings of the parties concerned has framed necessary issues and trial also commenced. Therefore, there is no necessary to file the said application for framing additional issues in the suit. 6. It is seen from the records that the Court below has passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner/defendant, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. In order to decide the lis pending between the parties, an opportunity should be provided to the revision petitioner/defendant to put forth his submissions. 7. Therefore, the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed in I.A.No1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1698 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside. The Court below shall take up I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.1698 of 2024 afresh and pass orders on merits after hearing either side. The Court below shall dispose of the application as well as the main suit as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law not being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. With the above directions and observations, this civil revision petition 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.4240 of 2025 stands disposed of. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed. 25-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No nsd To The III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No.4240 of 2025 M.JOTHIRAMAN J. nsd CRP No.4240 of 2025 25.09.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis