N. Vanaja @ Vanaja Nagendran vs Bhanumathy

A. Badharudeen, J

This Review Petition has been filed by the original petitioners in O.P(C).No.2195/2021 to review judgment dated 10.03.2022 in the above case.

Heard the lerned counsel for the review petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that as per judgment dated 10.03.2022, this Court categorically laid down the law regarding the contentions permissible on behalf of the legal heirs of a deceased defendant and it was held as under in para.11:

“11. Going by the ratio in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee's case(supra), Bal Kishan's case(supra) and Vidyavati's case(supra), the law is no more res integra on the point that the heirs and the legal representatives of a deceased defendant could have urged except only those which are personal to the deceased. Indeed, this does not prevent the legal representatives from setting up their own independent title also, in which case, there could be no objection to the Court impleading them not merely as the legal representatives of the deceased but also in their personal capacity avoiding thereby a separate suit for a decision on the title. To be more explicit, when the legal representatives or the legal heirs brought on record for representing the deceased defendant, they could urge only contentions which the deceased could have urged. However, they can take contentions otherwise, if they are impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased as well as in their individual capacity.”

The learned counsel for the review petitioner thereafter highlighted Ext.P8 order put under challenge in the Original Petition. As per Ext.P8, the learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.6/2021 in O.S.No.1396/2005 as under:

“Petition is allowed. Pleadings of the additional defendants 12 to 14 to the extent they are contrary and not in consonance to that of the sole defendant are rejected.”

The learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that though the order is in accordance with the legal position held by this Court, the order doesn't say what are the contentions which are contrary to the contentions of the original 3rd defendant and to what extent the other contention in the additional written statement filed by defendants 12 to 14 are acceptable. He also submitted that in view of the matter, the judgment may be interfered with direction to the Munsiff Court to pass a detailed order highlighting contra contentions in exact terms.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in view of Ext.P8 order, additional written statement was received and therefore, there is no necessity to segregate the contra contentions.

While appreciating the rival contentions, it is relevant to note that this aspect was not pointed out during hearing of the Original Petition. Since Ext.P8 order doesn't contain the details of contra contentions which could not be accepted as seen raised in the additional written statement filed by defendants 12 to 14, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioners is having force. In view of the matter, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P8 order to the extent the same doesn't segregate what are the contra contentions which could not be accepted in the additional written statement.

Therefore, the learned Munsiff is directed to hear both parties in detail and to decide the contra contentions which could not be accepted, and to pass a detailed order showing the contra-contentions which could not be accepted and considered during trial, strictly in accordance with the law settled as extrcted herein above.

Thus the Review Petition stands allowed by modifying the original judgment dated 10.03.2022 in O.P(C).No.2195/2021, put under review.

Since the Suit is of the year 2005, the learned Munsiff is directed to do the above exercise within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and proceed to dispose of the Suit at the earliest.