S TAMILVANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE. While he was functioning as III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, a suit filed by one Suhura Beevi Educational Trust, pending on the file of the VI Assistant Judge as O.S. No. 9188 of 1992 was transferred to the file of the petitioner by an o of Tamil Nadu, (2) the Director of Legal Studies, runelveli. The prayers in the suit were for declaration that the plaintiff was a Muslim religious minority trust and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from implementing certain Sections of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 and some Rules framed thereunder, besides Statute 21 of Chapter XXVI of the Laws of the University. There was an application for interim injunction. The University had filed a counter affidavit in the said application and also a written statement in the suit. The suit stood posted to 30-9-1993.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit filed I.A. No. 15580 of 1993 for advancing the hearing of the suit and notice was ordered to the respondents on 20-9-1993. Though notice was served on defendants 1 and 2, it was not served on the third defendant. When the matter was called on 23-9-1993, the counsel for defendants 1 and 2 made an endorsement, "Since the written statement is ready, I am not filing any counter in this application". THE counsel for the plaintiff made an endorsement, "As against the third respondent there is no relief in the suit and therefore I am not pressing the 3rd respondent/defendant". At the same time, an endorsement was made by the said counsel on the plaint as follows:- "THE suit as against the 3rd defendant is withdrawn as not pressed". THE petitioner herein made an endorsement on the plaint, "Recorded".

(3.) ON 6-10-1993, the first witness for the plaintiff was examined and the case was adjourned to 12-10-1993. In the meanwhile, on 5-10-1993, the third defendant filed C.R.P. No. 2939 of 1993 in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the petitioner dismissing the suit against the third defendant. The revision petition was admitted on 7-10-1993 and an interim order of stay of further proceedings was granted in C.M.P. No. 13891 of l993. The said order reached the trial Court on 12-10-1993 only. What happened thereafter in the trial court is not relevant in this case.