UMA Vs. K PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third party to the Rent Control proceedings who is the petitioner herein has filed applications in i. A. No. 8 of 2006 in HRCOP. No. 91 of 1995 and I. A. No. 9 of 2006 in HRCOP. No. 92 of 1995 on the file of learned District munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi to substitute her in the place of petitioners 1 and 2 in the above main petitions. That applications came to be filed in June 2006 and they have been adjourned on many occasions for filing counter and it is seen that the other side has filed counter and the matters have been adjourned for enquiry.

(2.) EVEN though the prayer in the Civil Revision petitions which are filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India to set aside the orders dated 21. 8. 2007 made in I. A. No. 8 of 2006 in HRCOP. No. 91 of 1995 and order dated 27. 8. 2007 in I. A. No. 9 of 2006 in HRCOP. No. 92 of 1995 on the file of learned District Munsif cum Judicial magistrate, Vaniyambadi, it is only date of adjournments, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the trial Court to take up the applications and decide the same on merit and in accordance with law.

(3.) CONSIDERING the limited prayer sought for in these revision petitions, notice to the respondents is not necessary at this stage. In view of the same, the District munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vaniyambadi is directed to take up the applications in I. A. No. 8 of 2006 in HRCOP. No. 91 of 1995 and I. A. No. 9 of 2006 in HRCOP. No. 92 of 1995 pending on his file and decide the same, after giving opportunity to all the parties concerned expeditiously, in any event, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.