KUPPANNA GOUNDER Vs. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the first respondent are heard. Though the second respondent was served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance to oppose this revision petition.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.222 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari for partition and separate possession and for injunction. The second respondent challenged the suit. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for and passed a preliminary decree for partition directing division of 38 cents from the rest of the suit properties with a further direction to put the plaintiff in possession of the same. The decree also restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Car Track shown as 'ABCD' in the rough plan attached to the plaint.

(3.) As against the decree of the Trial Court dated 28.9.2007, the second respondent herein, who figured as third defendant, filed an appeal on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in A.S.No.11 of 2008. The appeal is being contested by the first respondent herein/decree-holder (plaintiff). The revision petitioners, who have been arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in the appeal, chose to prefer a Cross-Objection in the said appeal filed by the third defendant making a prayer similar to the one made by the appellant. The first respondent/decree-holder preferred application in I.A.No.52 of 2011 for the rejection of the cross-objection citing Order 41 Rule 22 and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the provision under which the cross-objection was filed making a prayer similar to the one made by the appellant in A.S.No.11 of 2008 viz., the third defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge chose to number it as cross appeal assigning the number as Cross Appeal Suit No.39 of 2008. After the same was taken on file, the first respondent herein viz., the plaintiff in the original suit, filed application in I.A.No.52 of 2011 for rejection of the said cross appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing, allowed the application and rejected the cross appeal preferred by the revision petitioners. As against the said order dated 26.7.2012 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2011, the present revision has been filed.