Expert guidance
Azhakukumar
(Querist) 12 April 2015
This query is : Resolved
Dear Experts
The property (the campus) is in a continuous building area, measures 100 x 18 feet, with a 4 feet wide conservancy lane on the south side from which access to the rear side owners are available. The plaintiff purchased the road side three storey building, about 50 years old, measuring about 38/37 (371/2 feet) x 18 feet = around 675 sqft. With a right to use the common passage. The defendant property is 28 x 18 feet abuts the plaintiff western wall, accessed from common passage and inherited by a gift deed. Both properties share a deed of exchange which is not in dispute and serve as parent document for the defendants.. With proper permission from Municipal Corporation, commenced demolition in October 2012. The neighbor unlawfully blocking demolition work and forcing plaintiff to sell the property for a song. Necessary police complaint was given. The High court direction was given. Still the plaintiff could not proceed work. The police authority cites pending civil case as a reason. .The High court appointed advocate commission (Both party paid & agreed) with the help of taluk office revenue officials clearly has given site plan as per records and as existing & boundaries are clearly marked.
Plaintiff: The Decree and judgment prayed is the defendants or their authorized persons should not interfere with the demolition and reconstruction of a three storey buldings; the plaintiff is to be compensated with the necessary expenses and any other relief that the court may feel fit. The application was filed as an emergency petition since one floor yet to be demolished and the building is in a state of collapse and danger to people, neighboring building and traffic(Mentioned in the plaint).
During arguments the defendants bring in a new claim that the wall between two is belonging to them and present a new fabricated schedule without survey number and boundaries.
The OS of Appellant filed in July 2013, the trial court appointed an advocate commission (Plaintiff paid and both agreed) and found that each wall is separate. After this, the second judge was transferred and the 3rd judge tenure is reining in. Further in the Title, the end wall is not mentioned as common wall (Pothuchuvar). After contesting one year, the defendants filed OS, filed interim application under Or7R11 and the trial court dismissed the petition filed under Or7R11 and Sec 12 TNCFSV act. The defendants went for Revision in the Hon’ble High Court which was also dismissed. So many somersaults were done by the defendants to drag the case..
Now, while waiting for an order, the plaintiff again filed civil revision petition in the Hon’ble High Court challenging the maintainability of the suit and praying for striking off the suit from the file of the trial court.
Governments are informed about the gravity of the situation and the Municipal Corporation has sent two letters to Police authority to provide Police protection as per law.
I am from petitioner’s side and not legal practitioner.
Such revision petition is maintainable and kindly renders us expert guidance.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 13 April 2015
Too long a story and not query, be precise and brief.
Contact, engage and consult a local lawyer.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 13 April 2015
query too long.
Azhakukumar
(Querist) 14 April 2015
Dear Experts
It is a pending Original suit in the city Civil Court for not interfering with demolition and reconstruction, for that permission was granted by the local authority. The defendants plea under Or7/R11 was dismissed by the lower court as well as the Hon'ble High Court. Now, while waiting for an order, the defendants again filed civil revision petition in the Hon’ble High Court challenging the maintainability of the suit and praying for striking off the suit from the file of the trial court.
Experts my query is whether it is permissible ?.
Thanks in advance.
Regards
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 16 April 2015
The maintainability will be decided by the court before whom the petition is filed. You have a lawyer engaged, why dont you ask such class room questions to him. The civil suit is pending and such applications and revision petitions are common by which the parties will drag on the issue as much as possible.
Azhakukumar
(Querist) 17 April 2015
Dear Experts
My query is based on a question of law: No interim order is passed; the issues of plaint raised by the trial court are not answered by the defendant. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed a revision petition of dismissal by the trial court under Order VII.R. 11 of CPC. The trial is progressing greater than 1 year; advocate commission report was answered by plaintiff as well as defendant. Under these circumstances, one more revision for maintainability of the suit and striking it off from the trial court file is permissible by law.
Thanks
Azhakukumar
(Querist) 17 April 2015
Dear Experts
My query is based on a question of law: No interim order is passed; the issues of plaint raised by the trial court are not answered by the defendant. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed a revision petition of dismissal by the trial court under Order VII.R. 11 of CPC. The trial is progressing greater than 1 year; advocate commission report was answered by plaintiff as well as defendant. Under these circumstances, one more revision for maintainability of the suit and striking it off from the trial court file is permissible by law.
Thanks
