High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 03 MAD CK 0093

K. Kothandaraman vs Mathivanan and K. Gopalarathinam

Madras High Court · Decided on 23 March 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Jaichandren, J
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. (PD) No. 895 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 540 words

M. Jaichandren, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to set aside the fair and Decretal

order, dated 29.12.2008, made in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, reversing the fair and decreetal

order, dated 09.04.2008, made in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, by the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2.

The petitioner herein had filed a suit, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, for bare injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner had filed an Interlocutory Application, in I.A. No. 129 of 2008, praying for an

interim order of injunction. The trial Court, by its order, dated 09.04.2008, had granted an order of interim injunction. Thereafter, the interim order

granted had been made absolute.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents had filed an appeal before the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. The Subordinate Court,

Poonamallee, by its order, dated 29.12.2008, allowed the appeal by dismissing I.A. No. 129 of 2008, stating that the petitioner, who is a co-

sharer in the property concerned, cannot pray for an order of injunction. It had also stated that even though the petitioner had claimed the share of

the property in question, by way of an unregistered family arrangement, the said document had not been marked in support of the Interlocutory

Application filed by the petitioner.

4.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that, the order of injunction, dated 09.04.2008, made in I.A. No. 129 of

2008, in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, granted by the learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, is a conditional order, by which the petitioner had

been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/-, per month, to the respondents. Even though the petitioner had been complying with the conditional

order issued in his favour, the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, had vacated the order of injunction granted by the Additional District Munsif

Court, Poonamallee, by its order, dated 29.12.2008, by allowing C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008.

5.

Even though the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the possession of the property by the petitioner is

illegal possession, this Court is not inclined to decide the said issue, at this stage. It is for the trial Court to give its finding on the said issue. In such

circumstances, the order of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamalle, dated 29.12.2008, made in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2008, is set aside. Consequently

the order of the trial Court, dated 09.04.2008, made in O.S. No. 22 of 2008, shall stand revived, on the condition that the petitioner pays a sum

of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondents, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The learned Judge, Additional

District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, is directed to hear and dispose of O.S. No. 22 of 2008, on merits and in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

This Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.