K P VENKATACHALAPATHI Vs. THEIVATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) A summarization and summation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No,44 of 2007 seeking to declare that the sale deed dated 17.05.2005 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, he filed I.A.No.155 of 2007 seeking interim injunction. Whereupon counter was filed by D2 virtually admitting the contentions of the petitioner/plaintiff in the said I.A. Such a counter was purported to have have been filed by D2 under the signature of D2 by her Advocate one Senthil Kumar. It so happened that subsequently, I.A.No,713 of 2007 was filed by the same D2, seeking the following relief: - to strike off the original counter statement of the petitioner in I.A.No.155 of 2007 in O.S.No,44 of 2007 and to permit her to file a fresh counter statement and to receive the same. Whereupon, the lower Court after hearing both the sides allowed the said application striking out the earlier counter filed on behalf of D2 in I.A.No.155 of 2007 and permitted D2 to file fresh counter, which is virtually quite antithetical to the stand taken earlier by D2 in the earlier counter of D2.Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds.

(3.) PELLUCIDLY and palpably, apparently and blindly, it is indispensable that the lower Court had seen only one side of the matter and not the other side. The affidavit of the Advocate, Senthil Kumar is a must for deciding the issue but unfortunately it was not directed to be filed by him. The entire issue/dispute is centered on Advocate Senthil Kumar. According to the lower Court, he accepted the vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff and the same Advocate accepted the vakalat for D2 and filed the counter. In such a case, the lower court after serving the copy of the I.A.No,713 of 2007, should have directed him to file an affidavit explaining his stand. Absolutely, I could see no reason to countenance and uphold the order of the lower Court.