P. SHANMUGAM Vs. P. SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for partition and separate possession, aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his Application under Order XII Rule 6 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') has preferred the above revision.

(2.) I have heard Mr.S.Senthinathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Senthinathan would submit that the Trial Court, having noticed that the defendant has in no uncertain terms admitted the right and entitlement of the plaintiff insofar as the immovable item of property is concerned, ought not to have dismissed the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, citing the addition of another immovable property in IA.No.06 of 2024. He would further state that IA.No.06 of 2024 was filed only pursuant to the Application filed by the plaintiff, to pass a judgment and decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and that too, with an ulterior motive of protracting proceedings, despite earlier categorical admission of the right of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the plaintiff has also taken out an Application to include other properties which have been left out and further the suit also involves movable items of properties and pendency of the suit in respect of other items of the property cannot be a bar to entertain the Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.