IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 25.3.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.(PD) No.136 OF 2010 R.Thiyagarajan ... Petitioner vs. 1. All India Karate-Do Federation Registered Society under the Society Registration Act rep. By its General Secretary Mr.P.R.Raman 2. S.Krishnan 3. M.Kanaharaj 4. Bharat Sharma 5. Lal Darda 6. Jacob Devakumar ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 8.1.2010, made in I.A.No.28 of 2010, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam. For petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu for Mr.Venkatesh Mohan Raj For respondents: Mr.P.Kannan & K.Priya for R1 No Appearance for R2 to R5 O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 8.1.2010, made in I.A.No.28 of 2010, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam.
2. The petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition is the second defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, filed by the first respondent herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, from claiming to be the office bearers and the governing body members of the plaintiff’s federation and from sending letters and other correspondence and communication to the various authorities and to restrain them from conducting meetings, tournaments, coaching camps etc. The interlocutory application, in I.A.No.28 of 2010, had been filed praying for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents therein and their men from, in any way, claiming to be the office bearers of the plaintiff’s federation till the disposal of the suit.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit filed by the said federation, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, is an abuse of the process of law, as a similar suit had been filed before the District Munsif Court, Erode, in O.S.No.13 of 2010. Since, no order of injunction had been granted by the District Munsif Court, Erode, in I.A.No.16 of 2010, in O.S.No.13 of 2010, the first respondent federation had filed another suit praying for a similar relief before the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, in O.S.No.15 of 2010.
4. It had also been stated that the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam, by his order, dated 8.1.2010, made in I.A.No.28 of 2010, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, had granted an order of injunction, as prayed for by the first respondent, in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reason for the passing of the said order. The said order passed by the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam, is contrary to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Further, it is contrary to the decisions of this Court, as well as of the Supreme Court. In the said decisions, it has been made clear that, while granting interim orders, without due notice to the defendants or the respondents, the compelling reasons for granting such orders should be assigned in the said orders, by the concerned Court. In the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Mettupalayam, the compelling reasons for the granting of such an order had not been stated.
5. It had also been stated the first respondent has been doing forum shopping in filing the suits, both before the District Munsif Court, Erode, and before the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam. A writ petition had also been filed before the Madurai Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras, to restrain the petitioner and others from functioning as the office bearers of the federation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also pointed out that this Court, by its order, dated 21.1.2010, made in M.P.No.1 of 2010, filed along with the present Civil Revision Petition, had observed that the first defendant had misused the process of law by filing the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, before the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, and obtaining an order of interim injunction against the petitioner and others, in I.A.No.28 of 2010.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision, in THE MEMBER CONCERN DEPARTMENT OF POST Vs. MS.ANNAPOORNI 2005 (4) L.W. 206 in support of his contentions.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had submitted that the cause of action for the suit, filed before the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, is different from the cause of action for the suit, in O.S.No.13 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode. Further, the plaintiff in the said suits had not filed any writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the High Court of judicature at Madras, as claimed by the petitioner. As such, there is no abuse of the process of law, as alleged by the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the first respondent had also submitted that the Interlocutory Application, in I.A.No.28 of 2010, and the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, had been withdrawn, by the first respondent, on 17.3.2010. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous.
10. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent has abused the process of law cannot be countenanced. The cause of action for the suits filed by the first respondent before the District Munsif Court, mettupalayam, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, is different from the cause of action for the suit filed before the District Munsif Court, Erode, in O.S.No.13 of 2010. Further, it has been pointed out that the first respondent had not filed any writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for a similar relief. It has also noted that the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mettupalayam, had been withdrawn by the first respondent, on 17.3.2010. As such, the present Civil Revision Petition has become infructuous. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stand dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.
lan
To
The District Munsif Court,
Mettupalayam