The Madras High Court recently disposed of a civil suit that had been pending since 1979, after the parties agreed to a settlement..On November 5, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madurai bench decided against pronouncing his judgment that he had kept ready in a “sealed cover” on the 45-year-old suit. This, after the parties expressed a desire to settle the dispute just before the judgment could be pronounced.The Court accordingly, accepted the “joint compromise memo” filed by the parties and let the “detailed opinion on merits prepared by the Court is destined to remain in the Sealed Cover, not to be opened and pronounced forever.”.Before disposing of the matter, the High Court also advised all courts to be mindful while hearing or adjourning long pending cases. It said that all cases, irrespective of the number of years they had been pending for, must be taken to their legal conclusion.“That is the final twist in the tale of forty-six years. This case leaves this Court with mixed feelings. A little sad because the case has not received the manner of attention it ought to have received, in spite of being an old matter. 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..In July this year, Justice Chakravarthy had invoked Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to transfer all proceedings in the 45-year-old suit from a local court in Virudhnagar district in Tamil Nadu to the Madras High Court. He did so after noting that the suit that had remained pending since 1979 and could have easily been decided by the local court within 20 to 30 “judicial active hours.” Interestingly, the High Court completed the entire trial of the suit in under two months..The suit had been by a landlord for ejectment of the tenant.Justice Chakravarthy noted that just three questions needed to be decided in such suit.First, whether the tenancy was determined and terminated and whether the landlord could pray for ejectment; second, whether the tenant could ask the landlord to sell the property and last, what would the sale price or the amount of compensation be in case the tenant is ejected..On October 29, the High Court reserved its orders, but noted that there existed a chance of settlement between the parties.On November 5, the parties agreed to settlement terms, as per which the legal heirs of the defendant tenant agreed to vacate and hand over the premises to the plaintiff landlord.The plaintiff landlord in turn agreed to pay ₹26 lakh to the defendant..Advocate Suriya Narayanan appeared for the landlord.Advocates P Kannan and S Kadarkarai appeared for the defendant’s representatives..[Read Order]
