PALANIAMMAL Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and considered their respective submissions.

(2.) THIRU R. Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would fairly state that on the point of jurisdiction, after the enhancement of jurisdiction under Act 1 of 2004, the Sub Court alone is entitled to try O. S. No. 135 of 2006 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would further represent that there is also another connected suit in O. S. No. 85 of 2007 and a joint trial was ordered and P. W. 1 was examined in the joint trial (O. S. Nos. 135 of 2006 and 85 of 2007 ).

(3.) UNDER such circumstances, both the suits in O. S. Nos. 135 of 2006 and 85 of 2007 are ordered to be transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Namakkal for joint trial. The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal is directed to dispose of both the suits within a period of three months from the date of reopening. ie. , on or before 31. 8. 2009. The impugned order under I. A. No. 23 of 2009 in O. S. No. 135 of 2006 on the file of Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi is set aside. Both parties shall appear before the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal on 30. 4. 2009. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate , Paramathi is also directed to despatch the entire records forthwith to the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M. P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.