Opinion On Merits Destined To Remain In Sealed Cover Forever: Madras HC Observes As 46-Yr-Old Dispute Ends After Parties Reach Compromise

"Shocked" by the long pendency of the suit, the High Court had in July this year transferred the suit–earlier pending before the lower court, to itself by exercising powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution, after one of the parties approached the court challenging the order in an interlocutory application.

Justice Bharath Chakravarthy, on noting that there was a chance of settlement, gave another opportunity to the parties to come up with their options though the court had already prepared the judgement. Following this, the parties arrived at a settlement and filed a joint compromise memo before the court.

“A little happy because a 46-year-old conflict is resolved amicably and finally. The detailed opinion on merits prepared by the Court is destined to remain in the Sealed Cover, not to be opened and pronounced forever. … Let it be!,” the judge wrote while closing the case.

The court also expressed dissatisfaction that the case had not received proper attention in spite of being an old case. The court noted that while dealing with such old cases, the court should neither be numb and keep adjourning the case nor be over defensive and dismiss every adjournment request of the counsels. The court added that old cases required a detailed hearing where the nature of the lis was understood and given a logical conclusion after hearing the parties.

“Whenever we come across such old matters pending, we should neither be numb and casually further adjourn the matter, nor become over-defensive and dismiss every request that is made by the counsel resulting in more appeals being filed. Old matters require a little detailed pendency hearing by which we should try to understand what is the lis about and why is it pending and take it forward to its logical conclusion by giving due opportunity to the parties as per law,” the court said.

Background

The suit was originally filed in 1979 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur for ejecting the defendant - tenant. The plaintiff had argued that they had rented out the vacant space to the defendant to put up a rice mill for monthly rent. Thereafter when a dispute arose between the parties, a notice of termination of tenancy was issued and the suit was filed.

An application was also filed under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to sell the property to the defendant. While this petition was pending, an amendment was made to the Act by which, if a property belonged to a religious charity, the Act could not be applied. Since this amendment was made retrospectively, the case remained pending.

After the case was taken up by the High Court, issues were framed, evidence was examined, and arguments heard.

Through the compromise memo, the parties informed the court that the defendant tenant was ready to vacate the premises and in turn, the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs 26 Lakh. The plaintiff also agreed to waive of the rental arrears.

Since both the parties deposed that they had voluntarily entered into compromise, the court decreed the suit in terms of the joint memo.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan

Counsel for Defendant: Mr.P.Kannan for Mr.S.Kadarkarai

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 445

Case Title: P.A.Ramasubramania Raja v. K.M.Sanjeevi Raja

Case No: TR.O.S.(MD)No.1 of 2024