(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated March 07, 2022 passed in I.A. No.03 of 2020 in O.S.S.R. No.12647 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpet.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated March 07, 2022 passed in I.A. No.02 of 2020 in O.S.S.R. No.12647 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpet.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated March 07, 2022 passed in I.A. No.01 of 2020 in O.S.S.R. No.12647 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpet.)

Common Order

1. Assailing the Fair and Decretal Orders dated March 07, 2022 passed in I.A. Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2020 in O.S.S.R. No.12647 of 2015 by 'the Principal District Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpet' ['Trial Court' for short], the 3rd Respondent / 3rd Defendant therein has filed these Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The 1st Respondent herein who is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit, filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No.8764 of 2013 challenging the approval of the building plan dated February 23, 2011 issued by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA] who is the 2nd Respondent herein, and sought for a direction to the official Respondents therein namely the Member Secretary, CMDA, the Collector, Kancheepuram District and the Commissioner, Pallavaram Municipality and others to demolish the unapproved structures of 'Block B and C bearing Survey No.311/3B2, 200 Feet Road, Self Help Industrial Estate, Kilkattalai, Chennai'.

3. The case of the Writ Petitioner in the Writ Petition is that the private Respondents therein namely Ramasamy and Prema Dhatri (revision petitioner in all CRPs) encroached the Writ Petitioner's property admeasuring 35 feet 4 inches in length and 20 feet in breadth and hence, she sought for a direction to the Respondents 2 to 4 therein to remove the encroachment made in her property by the private Respondents. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition vide its Order dated June 25, 2013 with the following observations in Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 :

                     “5.On going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that there are number of disputed questions of fact with regard to encroachment of the petitioner’s land and making construction in his land and also violation of easementary rights are involved in this case, more over, it is certified by the authority that the construction is as per the sanctioned plan dated 07.05.2012. So, in view of the above, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and file a suit for recovery of possession of his property, which is alleged to be encroached by the seventh respondent, as per the survey report and not by way of filing the present writ petition, which, in our considered opinion, is not maintainable.

                     6.Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, the Writ Petitioner / 1st Respondent herein filed a plaint in O.S.SR. No.12647 of 2015 on December 17, 2015 before the Trial Court. The said plaint was returned by the Office attached to the Trial Court citing some defects. The plaint was re-presented with a delay of 1048 days on December 3, 2018. However, the plaint was returned again on December 07, 2018 citing some defects. Thereafter, the plaint was again re-presented with a delay of 142 days. Again, the plaint was returned on April 30, 2019. Then, for the third time, the plaint was re-presented with a delay of 528 days. In total, there was a delay of 1718 days.

5. The first respondent herein / plaintiff filed I.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 2020 praying to condone the delay of 1048 days, 142 days and 528 days in representing the plaint. The three Interlocutory Applications were decided on the same day by the Trial Court after hearing both sides. The Trial Court concluded that the explanation offered by the 1st Respondent / Plaintiff, that there are 93 Defendants in the Suit and it was difficult to find out their spouse's or parents' names, address and other particulars is not reasonable, however in the interest of justice, the Trial Court allowed the Interlocutory Applications. Accordingly, it allowed the applications on payment of costs. I.A. No.1 of 2020 was allowed by directing the Petitioner therein to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the District Mediation Centre, Chengalpattu. Similarly, I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2020 were allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- in each to the District Mediation Centre, Chengalpattu.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decretarl Orders of the Trial Court in the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications, the 3rd Respondent/3rd Defendant therein has filed the Civil Revision Petitions.

7. Mr.K.Sai Sharavan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Writ Petition was disposed of as early as on June 25, 2013. The plaint was presented on December 17, 2015 i.e., nearly after two years. Thereafter, the plaint was returned. Hence, the plaint is barred by limitation. Hence, the Trial Court is not right in allowing the Interlocutory Applications and condoning the delay in representing the plaint. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions and set aside the Orders passed by the Trial Court in I.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 2020, and dismiss those applications.

                     7.1. He would rely on the following Judgments in support of his contentions: (i). H.Dohil Constructions Company Private Limited’ -vs- Nahar Exports Limited reported in (2015) 1 SCC 680; (ii) G.Nagendran’s -vs- Secretary to Government, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5307; (iii). Dhanalakshmi Fianciers -vs- Soundarammal reported in 2008 (5) CTC 438; and (iv). K.V.Ruthrakumar -vs- Major C.Chandrasekar Order dated March 08, 2019 in C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.212 & 213 of 2016; and (iv). P.Venkatesan -vs- Indirani reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 18300.

8. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the plaint.

9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that pending the Civil Revision Petitions, the Petitioner filed a memo stating that the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff passed away on October 24, 2024 and her legal heirs have filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the Trial Court and the same is pending. In view of the nature of these Civil Revision Petitions, this Court is of the view that there is no need to bring on record the Legal Heir(s)/Legal Representative(s) of the deceased - 1st Respondent in these Civil Revision Petitions.

10. The case of the 1st Respondent / Plaintiff is that the Revision Petitioner who is an adjacent land owner of her property along with the said Ramasamy encroached her property and put up construction. Other Defendants are the purchasers from the Revision Petitioner and the said Ramasamy. Hence, she filed a Writ Petition before this Court and the same was disposed of as stated supra. She presented the plaint in 2015 seeking declaration of title, mandatory injunction, handing over the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property and permanent injunction. The question whether the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction are barred by limitation is a mixed question of fact and law in this case, which requires trial for a decision thereon. Furthermore, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed over the Orders passed by the Trial Court in the Interlocutory Applications filed praying to condone the delays in representing the plaint. When the plaint itself was not taken on file, there is no need to look into the defence of the defendants. At that stage, it is purely a matter between the Court and the Plaintiff. At that stage, the Trial Court by exercising its discretionary power allowed the Interlocutory applications and condoned the delays. In such circumstances, the Revision Petitioner and other Defendants have no right to intervene with the same.

11. It is needless to mention that, now that the plaint has been numbered in O.S. No.154 of 2022 on the file of Additional District Judge, Chengalpattu, the Revision Petitioner and other Defendants are entitled to put forth their defence including that of limitation by way of filing written statement. They may also file an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 either at the 1st hearing of the Suit or at the time of framing of issues, if according to them the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the relief of mandatory injunction is barred by limitation.

12. This Court is of the view that there is no irregularity or illegality in the Orders passed by the Trial Court and therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions must fail. It is made clear that the observation made by this Court in this Common Order does not cause any prejudice to any parties. The Trial Court shall decide the Suit untrammelled / uninfluenced by this Common Order.

13. No quarrel with the case laws relied on by the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

14. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.