LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-200

VICTORDOSS Vs. RADHIKA

Decided On August 28, 2008
VICTORDOSS Appellant
V/S
RADHIKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment and decree in A. S. No. 454 of 2005 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 23. 02. 2006, is under challenge in this second appeal.

(2.) THE defendants in O. S. No. 1944 of 2004 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, had filed I. A. No. 11463 of 2004 under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) of CPC to reject the plaint in O. S. No. 1944 of 2004 on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. The learned IV Assistant Judge / Trial Judge holding that since the plaintiff has failed to schedule his property to the plaint schedule, she is not entitled to the relief of right of usage, easementary right etc. , had rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Trial Judge, the plaintiff in O. S. No. 1944 of 2004 had preferred A. S. No. 454 of 2005 before the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after giving due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, has held that the plaint cannot be rejected for the failure of the plaintiff scheduling her property to the plaint schedule, had allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 1944 of 2004, giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to file necessary petition to amend the plaint description of the property, more particularly to schedule the passage in question separately, which necessitated the defendants to file this second appeal before this Court.

(3.) THE following substantial questions of law were drafted for consideration on 5. 09. 2006 by this Court: