Madras High Court
CRP/6018/2026 of Rasammal Vs Chandra on 29 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.6018 of 2026
and
C.M.P.No.26083 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012021532026}
Rasammal
W/o.Sellamuthu
..Petitioner
Vs
1. Chandra
D/o.Kandasamy Nadar
Subramani (died)
Palanisamy (died)
2. Nallammal
D/o.Kandasamy Nadar
3. Muthayee
W/o.T.M.Subramaniam Nadar
4. Meenachi
W/o.Rajagopal
5. Vasantha
W/o.Anbalagan
6. Manju
W/o.Balakrishnan
7. Malliga
D/o.Palanisamy
8. Selvi
W/o.Gunasekaran
..Respondents
( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 12:06:18 pm )
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, dated 23.07.2026 in I.A.No.13 of 2026 in O.S.No.120 of
2015.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Surya Kumaran
*****
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, dated 23.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2026 in O.S.No.120 of 2015, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/sixth defendant under section 10 CPC to stay all further proceedings in the suit pending disposal of S.A.No.1606 of 2008, came to be rejected by the Court below.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. The first respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S No.120 of 2015 seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/6 share in the suit property and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner is the sixth defendant in the suit and who is the subsequent purchaser of the suit property.
4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.13 of 2026 in O.S.No.120 of 2015 under Section 10 CPC to stay the suit on the ground that the plaintiff and her mother
( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 12:06:18 pm )
had filed an earlier suit in O.S.No.189 of 1992 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and this suit was dismissed and the appeal was partly allowed by granting liberty to institute a suit for partition. Challenging the same, defendants 1 to 3 in the present suit, had filed S.A.No.1606 of 2008 before this Court and the same is pending. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner/sixth defendant filed I.A.No.13 of 2026 in O.S.No.120 of 2015 to stay the suit till the disposal of S.A.No.1606 of 2008. The Court below has dismissed this application mainly on the ground that the present suit is at the stage of further cross-examination of PW-1 and mere pendency of the second appeal will not result in granting stay of the present suit, which was filed in the year 2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.
5. The case in hand reflects the sorry state of affairs that is prevailing in civil proceedings, which is pending before all Courts starting from the Subordinate Courts till the High Court for years together. The application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that S.A.No.1606 of 2008 is pending before this Court and the final judgment in this second appeal will have a direct bearing in the suit that has been filed in O.S No.120 of 2015. The second appeal has been pending for the last 18 years before this Court and a suit has been pending before the Sub-Court, Tiruchengode, for the last eleven years. In this pathetic scenario, the interlocutory application is filed by the petitioner in the
( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 12:06:18 pm )
year 2026 to stay the suit filed in the year 2015 based on a second appeal that is pending before this Court from the year 2008. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the suit is at an advanced stage of examination of witnesses and staying the suit will only result in further delay in the disposal of the suit and the Court below does not have any control over the disposal of the second appeal pending before this Court from the year 2008.
6. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by Court below does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference of this Court. Admittedly, a civil miscellaneous petition has already been moved in S.A.No.1606 of 2008 to stay the proceedings in O.S.No.120 of 2015 and even this petition has not been taken up for hearing by this Court. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioner to prosecute the petition that has already been filed in S.A.No.1606 of 2008 and work out the remedy. In the result, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, dated 23.07.2026 passed in I.A.No.13 of 2026 in O.S.No.120 of 2015, is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/aj
( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 12:06:18 pm )
To The Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode.
( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 12:06:18 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. gm/aj Civil Revision Petition No.6018 of 2026 29-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 12:06:18 pm )