K G ARUMUGHAM Vs. K A CHINNAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 4 in O.S.No. 187 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore (respondents 2 to 4 in I.A.No. 1019 of 1987) have preferred this revision.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are briefly as follows: THE respondents - plaintiffs, preferred a suit in O.S.No. 187 of 1980 originally for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners and three others from causing any obstruction or interference or prejudice to the plaintiffs in dividing at their discretion the suit properties into portions as sites for construction of buildings and demarcating the boundaries of such sites with survey stones and laying out roads in the suit properties etc and from causing in any other manner any injury to any of the rights of the plaintiffs under the suit contract and also for restraining the defendants from selling or alienating the suit properties in any manner to any person other than the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 1982 of 1980 for amending the plaint which includes the prayer for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale. THE said application was allowed. THEreafter, the court found that since the relief of specific performance was valued for Rs. 2,15,710, the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and returned the plaint for re-presentation to proper court granting two months time. THE said order was passed on 28.11.1980. THEreafter the respondents - plaintiffs did not take delivery of the returned plaint till 27.4.1987. THEy filed an application I.A.No. 1019 of 1987 under Sec. 148 and 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for issue of necessary orders for effecting delivery of the amended plaint in O.S.No. 187 of 1980 ordered by the Court to be returned to the plaintiffs and to grant such other relief just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. District Munsif, Coimbatore, without ordering any notice to the other side, passed an order on the basis of the sworn affidavit only filed in support of the application, as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners Mr.K. Doraisami, submitted that an order was passed in the amendment application after hearing both parties, and thereafter the plaint was amended. It was stated that after appearance of the revision-petitioners, they have filed no counter and the application was allowed. When the application I.A.No. 1019 of 1987 was filed, the Court ought to have issued notice and passed an order only after hearing the revisionpetitioners as the order virtually affects the rights of the revision-petitioners (Defendants). Without doing so, the Court below, which has no jurisdiction after ordering return of the plaint, has passed the impugned order granting a week's time for presentation in proper Court after a lapse of seven years and the said order is without jurisdiction and is not legal in support of the said contention, he invited the attention of this Court to the decision reported in RAMACHANDRAYYA v. VENKATARATNAM, (1925)22 L.W. 582: A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 133(2) where Odgers, J. held as follows: