Munsif’s action invites censure

The Madras High Court Bench here has disapproved the performance of a Principal District Munsif at Srivilliputtur in Virudhunagar district who did not dispose of an interlocutory application despite granting as many as 56 adjournments. Allowing a civil revision petition filed in the Bench against the frequent adjournments, Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar directed the Munsif to dispose of the matter finally on the next hearing date on March 4. “If the same was not possible due to any reason, the said Interlocutory Application shall be disposed of on or before March 31 and a report to that effect should be sent to the Registry of this Court by April 6,” he ordered. Detailing background of the case, the Judge said that C. Paramasivam of Srivilliputtur had filed a civil suit before the Munsif in 2004 to declare that he was the absolute owner of the suit property, besides recognising his title and interest in the land. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the fifth defendant, M.G. Sethurajan, or his servants or his agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property concerned. Even as the civil suit was pending adjudication, Mr. Sethurajan filed an interlocutory application (I.A.) on November 14, 2005 praying for a direction to reject the plaint. The Munsif on November 25, 2005 ordered notice in the I.A. Subsequently, Mr. Paramasivam filed a counter on January 16, 2006. Enquiry on the application began on February 15, 2006 and got over after a year on February 26, 2007. The Munsif posted the matter for orders. However, on March 15, 2007, the Munsif suo motu re-opened the I.A. and adjourned it by a fortnight. Thereafter, it was adjourned 35 times between March 29, 2008 and February 3, this year under the caption: “For clarification.” Taking serious view of the matter, Mr. Justice Vasanthakumar said that Article 227 of the Constitution empowered the High Court to supervise the functioning of lower courts in both administrative and judicial sides. He also recalled that the Supreme in Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) had held that the powers of the High Court could be invoked at the instance of an aggrieved person akin to the present revision petitioner.

"Loved reading this piece by M. PIRAVI PERUMAL?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group