Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53444 (MAD)

Chenkamalam Janagi (Died) v. Thiruvengadam (Died)

2026-06-05

V Lakshminarayanan

body2026
ORDER : V. Lakshminarayanan, J. The plaintiffs 3 to 8 are the civil revision petitioners. They seek expeditious disposal of O.S.No.349 of 2023 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Srivaikundam. 2.Taking note of the plea of the petitioners, I called for a report from the learned Subordinate Judge at Srivaikundam. I did so on account of the fact that the suit, though bears a number of O.S.No. 349 of 2023, its original avatar is OS.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Thoothukidi. 3.The report submitted by the learned Subordinate Judge at Srivaikundam, speaks volumes as to how the third defendant has filed one application after the other, literally exhausting every provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, to drag on the trial. Scandalous allegations have also been made against the Judicial Officer, as if she called upon the third defendant to sit on the floor of the Court hall and had treated him in an inhumane manner. The learned Judicial Officer, who, unfortunately, has to face the litigants in person, has been so frustrated that she has requested the learned Principal District Judge that the suit be removed from her file and sent to some other Court. 4.Taking note of the report, I called upon Mrs.J.Anandavalli, who represents the third defendant before me, to explain as to why suo motu contempt proceedings must not be initiated against the third defendant for not only having obstructed the smooth flow of the proceedings, but also for making scurrilous allegations against the Judicial Officer. Mrs.Anandavalli took time to file an affidavit of the third defendant. She filed the affidavit today. 5.The affidavit of the third defendant shows that between the parties, there have been several litigations. This suit has travelled from court to court without seeing the end of the litigation. I have already recorded that it was originally filed as OS.No.9 of 2005. Thereafter, it travelled from Thoothukudi to Tiruchendur and was renumbered as O.S.No.7 of 2017 and subsequently, it came to the present court at Srivaikundam and was renumbered as O.S.No.349 of 2023. 6.Earlier, a suit for partition had been presented by the third defendant in O.S.No.405 of 1994. Initially, the suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam. An appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin in A.S.No.98 of 2002 by the plaintiff herein. The appeal was allowed. 6.Earlier, a suit for partition had been presented by the third defendant in O.S.No.405 of 1994. Initially, the suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif, Srivaikundam. An appeal was preferred to the Subordinate Court at Tuticorin in A.S.No.98 of 2002 by the plaintiff herein. The appeal was allowed. Against the said judgment and decree, a second appeal had been preferred to this Court in S.A.(MD) No.374 of 2004. Citing the pendency of the suit for partition, the present suit had been kept in abeyance, from 2009 till 2025. 7.In the meantime, unfortunately, the original plaintiff, Tmt.Janaki passed away, not knowing the result of the litigation she had initiated. After the second appeal preferred against the suit for partition came to be dismissed by this Court on 07.04.2025, this suit was taken up for evidence. P.W1-Janaki, who had been examined in the year 2007, has been passed away in 2015, without undergoing the ordeal of cross-examination. P.W2 entered the witness box. It was with much persuasion, as seen from the report, that the examination of P.W2 was completed. Thereafter, it was the turn of the defendants to enter the witness box. The third defendant entered the witness box and then started the flurry of applications. The documents, which the third defendant otherwise have in his possession or ought to be in his possession, are sought by way of fresh applications. Citing the lack of issuance of certified copies, the third defendant did not co-operate with the Court for trial. 8.The learned Trial Judge, noticing that the suit is pending for the past 20 years, seems to have requested co-operation from the parties. Immediately, allegations have been made against the learned Judge. Out of frustration, she passed an order on 07.03.2026, closing the evidence of the third defendant and calling upon the 14 th defendant to enter the witness box. I should point out that the counsel for the third defendant and the 14 th defendant are one and the same person. Even thereafter, there was no co-operation. Therefore, the Court was left with no other option than to suo motu close the evidence. As allegations were made against her, she was forced to write to the learned Principal District Judge requesting his intervention to take the suit away from the file of the Court. Even thereafter, there was no co-operation. Therefore, the Court was left with no other option than to suo motu close the evidence. As allegations were made against her, she was forced to write to the learned Principal District Judge requesting his intervention to take the suit away from the file of the Court. The plaintiffs being frustrated for having been present in the Court at least from 1994, in one litigation or the other, have moved this revision seeking expeditious disposal of the suit. 9.Taking note of all the litigations and the delaying tactics adopted by the third defendant and the scandalous allegations made against the learned Trial Judge, when I was about to initiate contempt proceedings, Mrs.J.Anandavalli persuaded me to give her an opportunity, so that rectification steps would be initiated by the third defendant to ensure that no further hindrance is placed before the learned Trial Judge to conclude the suit. On account of her persuasion, I adjourned the matter to today for receipt of an affidavit. 10.A reading of the affidavit filed by Mr.G.P.S.Garudappa Ramanujam shows that he blames his counsel for the manner in which the suit was obstructed. A gentleman, aged about 56 years, seems to plead helplessness as if he is a babe in the woods. Such kind of attempts to blame the counsel for the commissions committed by the party cannot be accepted. 11.The affidavit further discloses that an application has been presented for rejection of the plaint after a lapse of 21 years. That too, when the suit is listed for cross-examination of the defendants. One copy application after another has been presented for receipt of copies. All this after this Court had come to the conclusion in S.A. (MD) No.374 of 2004 that the third defendant has no right to challenge the sale made in favour of the plaintiff herein. 12.The affidavit admits the fact of the statement made by the learned Subordinate Judge that she had allegedly called upon him to sit on the floor of the Court hall. It is sought to be explained as to all that the third defendant intended to do was to represent to the learned Principal District Judge that he was present in the Court from morning to evening. The third defendant has been kind enough to produce the handwritten letter. It is sought to be explained as to all that the third defendant intended to do was to represent to the learned Principal District Judge that he was present in the Court from morning to evening. The third defendant has been kind enough to produce the handwritten letter. 13.A reading of the letter shows that the party has not only given his address but has written as if the learned Judge asked him to do so. The following is extracted from the letter. 14.This letter, too, is sought to be explained by stating that it was dictated by the counsel. 15.Mr.Jeya Ganeshan representing Mr.K.Kumaravel, states that the original plaintiff is dead and the substituted plaintiffs only want the suit to see the end of litigation. I am entirely with him. If a suit is pending for 21 years at the stage of trial, the public will loose confidence in the judiciary. The acts of the third defendant only add to the erosion of this confidence. 16.Mrs.J.Anandavalli states that the evidence of D.W1 and 14 th defendant has been closed and that if an opportunity is given, they will proceed further with the suit. 17.Though this request is stoutly opposed by Mr.Jeya Ganeshan, being a civil proceeding and as Mrs.J.Anandavalli says that the third defendant and the 14 th defendant have recanted and have apologized for their earlier behavior, I am inclined to give them an opportunity. 18.I am also alive to the fact that the Supreme Court has pointed out that a Constitutional Court should not merely direct a Court subordinate to the Court to take up the suit and dispose of it at an early date. Yet, it is the duty of this Court to ensure that the officers subordinate to it are not harassed by the litigants [see, Nirmala. J.Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat , (2013) 4 SCC 301 ]. Hence, the following directions are given, not only to ensure that the suit is disposed of at an early date, but also to ensure that the harassment faced the learned Subordinate Judge at Srivaikundam is put an end to. 19.The directions are as hereunder:- i) The learned Subordinate Judge is requested to advance the hearing of the suit to 15.06.2026 ii) The cross-examination of the third defendant, who has entered the witness box as DW1, will commence on 15.06.2026 . 19.The directions are as hereunder:- i) The learned Subordinate Judge is requested to advance the hearing of the suit to 15.06.2026 ii) The cross-examination of the third defendant, who has entered the witness box as DW1, will commence on 15.06.2026 . The cross-examination can continue on that day and on the next day. By 16.06.2026 , the cross-examination of the third defendant must be over. iii) The defendants 14 and 15 shall file their proof affidavits on 15.06.2026 . An advanced copy of the proof affidavits will be served on the counsel for the plaintiffs. iv) The counsel for the plaintiffs shall commence the cross-examination of defendants 14 and 15 either on 16.06.2026 or 17.06.2026 . He shall complete the cross-examination of defendants 14 and 15 on or before 19.06.2026 v) The learned Subordinate Judge at Srivaikundam, is requested to hear the arguments from 22.06.2026 and close the arguments by 24.06.2026 . She is requested to pronounce the judgment by 03.07.2026 vi) If any of the parties do not co-operate with the Court for the purpose of disposal of the suit, the learned Judge shall immediately record the happenings/events on that day and shall close the evidence of the parties, who seeks to continue to be recalcitrant. vii) In any event, the judgment must be pronounced by 03.07.2026 viii) Any request for adjournments must be refused by the learned Judge recording this order. With the aforesaid directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands ordered. No costs.