K. CHITHIRAISELVAM Vs. C. VEERABATHIRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides. The germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions would run thus: Originally, the suit in O.S.No.74 of 2008 was filed for partition, whereupon preliminary decree was passed as against which an appeal was preferred before the High Court and in the appeal, judgment was pronounced on 22.11.2011 prescribing certain time limit for disposal of the final decree proceedings. Thereafter, it appears that before the Lower Court, the I.A.No.267 of 2012 was filed by the revision petitioners / plaintiffs to permit them to amend the final decree petition as per the particulars given in the petition. Similarly, the I.A.No.268 of 2012 was filed by the seventh and eighth defendants to add certain properties which have been left out in the 'A' schedule property and to delete some properties after the Court Commissioner pointed out the same. After hearing both the sides, the Lower Court dismissed both the applications on the main ground that in as much as a time limit has been fixed by the High Court, entertaining of those two petitions would further protract the proceedings; there was no sufficient evidence to hold that such properties should be added or that certain other properties should be deleted at the final decree stage; and that amendment of survey numbers also would lead to further complications. With the aforesaid findings, the Lower Court dismissed both the applications.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Lower Court, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been focussed on various grounds.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendants 7 and 8 would virtually support the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Similarly, the learned counsel for the defendants 3, 4 and 6 also would support the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.