KRISHNA REDDIAR Vs. N SEENU @ SIVASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree in A.S.No.132 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore in O.S.No.372 of 2000. The plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision Petition, in view of the fact that the value of the suit is less than Rs.25,000/- and therefore a second appeal would not lie from the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. The revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the judgment (K.Chockalingam Vs. K.R.Ramasamy Iyer and others, 2004 4 LW 586) this Court has held that revision under Section 115 would only mean a second appeal being filed in a different garb and the learned Judge converted the second appeal into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This judgment has also been followed in the judgment (Manickam Moopan Vs. Lakshmi, 2012 2 LW 683) In the light of the above judgments the revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is converted as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The brief facts culminating in the filing of the revision is narrated in a nutshell herein below.

(2.) The petitioners herein had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,000/- against the respondents herein as damages for the mental agony, loss of reputation, medical expenses and damages to the tractor, TVS 50 and the house of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that on 14.09.1999, the respondents herein had picked up a quarrel with the plaintiff and in the course of this scuffle with the first petitioner, they had used unparliamentary language and had assaulted petitioners 2 and 3. The entire incident had defamed the petitioners in society and resulted in a loss of reputation to the petitioners. On the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioners the respondents were tried for the offence in S.T.C.No.30 of 2000 in which proceedings, the respondent had admitted their guilt and a judgment came to be passed on 31.01.2000. The petitioners had incurred expenditure for repairing the tractor and the house and also the TVS 50. Therefore, the plaintiffs had come forward with the suit.

(3.) The defence to this suit was that the police had informed them that S.T.C.No.30 of 2000 relates to a petty offence and by pleading guilty the respondents would be saved the trouble of coming to Court for every hearing. Believing this statement of the police they had pleaded guilty. They would contend that an admission by mistake will not result in estoppel and further the claim had been barred by limitation and there was no proof for damages. They denied the other contents in the plaint. An additional written statement was also filed by the respondent in which, they had contended that the appeal filed against the judgment and decree in S.T.C.No.30 of 2000 was coming up for orders shortly and therefore the suit was premature. By their reply statement the petitioners had denied this contention.