CRP order D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

CRP(PD)(MD)No.1050 of 2023

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, dated 18.02.2023 made in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in C.T.O.P.No.13 of 1983. 

2. The Interlocutory Application is filed with a prayer to reopen the petitioner's side evidence. Even though the civil revision petition arose in a narrow campus, this Court was shocked to note that the suit was filed as O.S.No.139 of 1979, 46 years ago. The plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is the landlord in respect of the suit property. He let out the suit land with permission for the tenant to put up the superstructure. According to him a notice to determine the tenancy was issued and thereafter, the suit was filed for ejectment of the tenant. 

3. In the said suit, an application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (hereinafter the Act) was filed directing the plaintiff to sell the extent of the land on which the tenant has put up the superstructure. That was also filed 41 years ago in the year 1983. In the said original petition, the defence that was raised on behalf of the landlord was that it is a charitable trust and therefore, Section 9 is not applicable. The questions which are liable to be decided in these two proceedings are, 

(i) Whether or not the tenancy is duly determined and terminated and whether the plaintiff can pray for ejectment.
(ii) Whether or not the tenant is entitled to pray that the landlord should sell the property as per Section 9 of the Act.
(iii) What is the quantum of sale price in case of sale or the amount of compensation in case of ejectment?

4. The questions as simple as this should normally take around 20 to 30 active Judicial hours for the Court to decide. Unfortunately, from the year 1979, the case has not attained finality. The mosaic of delay contains various reasons, predominantly earlier appeal and remand, protracting of the proceedings by parties, impleading legal representatives etc. The delay is now 46 years. Conducting a postmortem as to what are the reasons for delay is pointless and would involve more time than that is necessary for deciding the lis.

5. This is one extraordinary case. Extraordinary cases deserve extraordinary remedies. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that the High Court on its own motion, withdraw any suit or other proceedings pending in any Court Subordinate to it and try and dispose of the same. The same is extracted hereunder for ready reference :
“24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.—(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage—

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and—
(i) try or dispose of the same; or
(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or
(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. I am inclined to exercise the said power given the extraordinary nature of this case. The extraordinary step is resorted to by this Court because the very system is in existence to provide legal remedies to parties. Then, if the simple questions are not decided even after 46 years, the very right to legal remedy itself becomes non-existent and illusory. This Court cannot be numb to that kind of a situation and turn its eyes away and decide only the application for recall of P.W.1 or reopening of the case.

7. The Court expressed the intention to withdraw the proceedings to the file of this Court. Even though both the learned counsel did not have an objection for this Court in trying the main suit itself, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants was that the parties may lose a right of appeal, in the event of this Court itself deciding the matter. When C.T.O.P.No.13 of 1983 and the suit are withdrawn and dealt with by this Court, it cannot be said that Section 100(A) or 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable. The issue is categorically settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.S. Sathappan -Vs- Andhra Bank Ltd & Others 1. In the judgment, it has been held that the Letters Patent Appeal is saved by Section 104 and that unless expressly taken away by any provision, the Letters Patent Appeal would lie. Useful reference can be made to paragraphs 14-30 of the said Judgment. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court excludes an intra-court appeal in cases where (i) The Judgment is passed in exercise of appellate Jurisdiction; (ii) in respect of exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order passed in appellate jurisdiction by a Court which is subject to the superintendence of the High Court ; (iii) an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction; (iv) not being an order passed in the exercise of superintendence; (v) in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction. In all other cases, an intra-court appeal is provided.  Therefore, the apprehension of the Learned Counsel is unfounded.

8. The said re-numbered O.S.No.26 of 2004 and C.T.O.P.No.13 of 1983 are withdrawn from the file of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur to the file of this Court. The trial Court is also requested to send all the papers immediately to the file of this Court.

9. It is made clear that this Court will take up the case in C.T.O.P.No.13 of 1983 first and after deciding depending on the C.T.O.P.No.13 of 1983, the suit will also be decided. 

10. At this juncture, the learned counsel on either side would submit that the evidence that is already recorded will suffice and they will straightaway proceed to argue the matter based on the evidence already recorded. 

11. This Court specifically gave an opportunity to both sides to let in any further evidence also before this Court, but both sides learned Counsel submitted that they do not intend to not let in any further evidence and submitted that they will argue the matter.

12.Post the matter on 16.07.2024 as the first item before this Court.                                                                               10.07.2024

sji
Note:
Addendum :
After this order was uploaded, the Court also noticed that the question relating to the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal with reference to the matters which are transferred to the file of this Court by exercise of powers under Section 24 of C.P.C. has already been dealt with in the Judgment of this Court in Srirangan Municipality Rep. by its Executive Authority, The Commissioner Vs. R.V.Palaniswami Pillai reported in 1950 SCC Online Mad 303 and it has been held that the Letters Patent is maintainable. 12.07.2024
sji

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,
sji

CRP(PD)(MD)No.1050 of 2023

12.07.2024