IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.08.2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.(NPD).No.2156 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 1. C.E.Suryanarayan 2. J.Balaji ... Petitioners vs. 1. N.Santhakumari 2. N.Ramachandran 3. N.Rajakumari 4. N.Babu 5. N.Lavanyakumari 6. P.Ethiraj 7. E.Rajamannar 8. E.Mohanraj 9. E.Tarageswari .... Respondents This civil revision petition is filed against the order and decreetal order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput in I.A.No.64 of 2009 in A.S.No.16 of 2009 against O.S.No.344 of 2006. For Petitioners : Mr.N.R.Chandran Senior counsel for Mr.M.Vaidyanathan For Respondents : Mr.David Tyagaraj ORDER
Animadverting upon the order and decreetal order dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput in I.A.No.64 of 2009 in A.S.No.16 of 2009 against O.S.No.344 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed by defendants 1 and 2.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The gist and kernel, the nitty-gritty of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:
(a) The plaintiffs/respondents herein filed the suit O.S.No.344 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:
– to declare that the sale deed dated 21.06.2006 under Doc.No.5442 of 2006 effected with the Registrar of assurance, Thiruporur by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as null and void and
– for costs.
(b) The matter was contested. Ultimately the court decreed the suit as against which, the defendants/revision petitioners herein preferred appeal. They also filed an application in I.A.No.64 of 2009 seeking stay of the operation of the decree passed and it was dismissed.
(c ) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the dismissal of the I.A for stay, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument,which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
– The order of the lower appellate court is against law and weight of evidence, and the lower appellate court should have stayed the operation of the decree dated 15.04.2009 passed in O.S.No.344 of 2006 by the learned District Munsif, Chingleput.
– The order of the lower appellate court is against all norms. Based on the said decree of the trial court, if the plaintiffs proceed to get effected mutations in their favour in the revenue records that would prejudice the right of the defendants in the appeal.
– Accordingly, the learned senior counsel prays for setting aside the order of the lower appellate court and to grant stay of the operation of the decree dated 15.04.2009.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:
– The nature of the decree is such that no consequential relief is found granted and absolutely there is no merit in this revision.
– The lower appellate Court thought fit not to express any opinion in the interlocutory stage itself so as to prejudice the mind of the parties and at this stage, this court being a revisional court need not upset the order of the lower appellate court.
– Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the revision.
6. At the hearing, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in unison would submit that the nature of the decree is such that no consequential reliefs were granted and in such a case, it is not open to either of the parties to bring before their mind’s eye also some consequential reliefs and pray for stay of the operation of such reliefs not granted by the court concerned.
7. However, the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that pending appeal, if there is any mutations in the revenue records on the strength of the decree passed, then they would be prejudiced. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that status quo has to be maintained by both sides and they should not try to get any changes in the revenue records or make any alienation or encumbrance etc.
8. It goes without saying that doctrine of lis pendens would be attracted and in the absence of any consequential relief having been given by the lower appellate court, this revisional court can dispose of the revision by passing order to the effect that on the strength of the decree passed by the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs or the defendants in either way shall not get effected any mutation in the revenue records concerned.
9. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that he want to raise a preliminary objection before the lower appellate court regarding the very maintainability of the original suit itself for which the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that what ever facilities available as per law for the appellants/revision petitioners to raise before the lower appellate court, it is for them to raise it and no specific direction is required in this revision.
10. Accordingly, I would like to observe that it is open for the revision petitioners/appellants/defendants to raise whatever pleas before the lower appellate court, which could be tenable and legally permissible. The lower appellate court shall dispose of the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.08.2010
vj2
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
G.RAJASURIA,J.
vj2
To
The Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingleput
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2156 of 2009
17.08.2010