LAWS(MAD)-2019-7-187

M MANIMEGALAI Vs. CHELLAMMAL

Decided On July 23, 2019
M Manimegalai Appellant
V/S
CHELLAMMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants in the suit O.S. No. 2351 of 2005 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge Court, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit was filed originally by the 1st respondent against the petitioners as well as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai. In the suit, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board was made as the 4th defendant pursuant to the order made by this Court in CRP No.2520 of 2009.

(3.) The suit was filed by the 1st respondent seeking for a direction to direct the petitioners to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The first respondent claimed that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as she has paid the entire sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as per the allotment order issued by them in her favour. The petitioners contested the said suit by filing a written statement. The suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent after contest by the petitioners. The first petitioner is the daughter of the first respondent and the second petitioner is her son~in~law. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 23.04.2012 passed in favour of the first respondent in O.S. No.2351 of 2005, the petitioners filed an appeal before the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S. No.335 of 2012. Pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioners filed CMP No.99 of 2013 in A.S. No.335 of 2012 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, seeking permission of the lower appellate Court to receive the additional documents viz., a) Registered document No.5099 of 2007 (b) Document No.5100 of 2007 and (c) copy of the plaint filed by the 1st respondent in the Sub Court, Madurantakam and also sought for permission to examine the second petitioner and give evidence before the Court.