BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/08/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1135 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Mohanavel 2.Sathiaseelan ..Petitioner Vs 1.Muruganandham 2.Mahalakshmi 3.V.Venugopal ..Respondents PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 06.05.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.79 of 2010 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Tiruchirappalli reversing the fair and decretal order dated 20.08.2010 in I.A.No.319 of 2010 in O.S.No.436 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram for Mr.A.Thirumoorthy ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan :ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners to set aside the fair and
decretal order dated 06.05.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.79 of 2010 on the file of
Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Tiruchirappalli
reversing the fair and decretal order dated 20.08.2010 in I.A.No.319 of 2010 in
O.S.No.436 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The nutshell of the case is as follows:-
(i) The first and second respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit in
O.S.No.436 of 2010 against the revision petitioners/respondents 3 to
5/defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men,
agents, servants claiming under them from in any manner interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property and
other relief. The said suit was resisted by the defendants after filing written
statement. The plaintiffs have filed the suit along with an interlocutory
application for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants.
This injunction application had been opposed by the respondents/defendants.
(ii) After hearing the arguments of the counsels on both the sides and on
perusing the averments of both the parties, the learned principal subordinate
Judge, Trichy dismissed the said injunction application. Aggrieved by the
dismissal of the injunction application, the plaintiffs have filed a civil
miscellaneous appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Court/Fast
Track Court No.II, Trichy. The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of
learned counsels on both sides and after perusing the relevant records of the
parties and on perusing the impugned order of the learned principal Subordinate
Judge, and set aside the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.319 of 2010
dated 20.08.2010 and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the
respondents/defendants.
(iii) Against the decree and judgment passed in the civil miscellaneous
appeal No.79 of 2010 dated 06.05.2011, the above civil revision petition has
been filed by the 3rd and 4th defendants.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the
appellate court has failed to note that the 1st and 2nd respondents
herein/plaintiffs have suppressed the suits in O.S.No.37 of 2010 before
Principal District Munsif, Trichy, O.S.No.216 of 2010 before 1st Additional
District Munsif, Trichy and O.S.No.623 of 2005 before 2nd Additional District
Munsif, Trichy. It was also pointed out that the appellate court has failed to
give reasons for reversing the well-considered order of the trial court in the
injunction application. It also submitted that the appellate court has failed
to note that the property involved in the present suit is one and the same of
the schedule properties in O.S.No.37 of 2010, O.S.No.216 of 2010 and O.S.No.623
of 2005. It was pointed out that the appellate court while granting injunction
in favour of the 1st and 2nd respondents herein /plaintiffs, failed to record
findings regarding (a) prima facie case (b) balance of convenience and
irreparable injury which is against the spirit of order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of code
of civil procedure.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the property had
been succeeded by the 2nd plaintiff from her parents, namely, Ramadas Valambar
and his wife Muthu Kannammal. As such, the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit
property. In order to prove the plaintiffs’ case, they had marked 16 documents
including encumbrance certificate and previous parent documents of the property.
There is a prima facie case made out by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the civil
miscellaneous appeal was allowed. Subsequently, interim order was granted.
5.In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent
cited a judgment in the case of Rt. Rev.Dr.H.A.Martin vs. The Tamil Evangelical
Lutheran Church reported in 2011(1) CTC 395. The relevant portion of the said
Judgment reads as follows:-
“Constitution of India, Article 227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), Sections 22 to 25 – Court can direct transfer of all cases pending in
several Courts of different territorial jurisdiction to one Court and also give
further direction that all such future Suits should be filed in said Court only
on taking into consideration pendency of several litigations pending before
different Courts on same subject matter, relief sought in such Suits and results
flowing from orders passed on same subject matter pending in different Courts –
Such order could be passed both an administrative side of High Court and on
Judicial side – Directions given.”
6.In another Judgment in the case of S.V.Doraisamy vs. T.Dayalan reported
in 2002(2) CTC 462. The relevant portion of this Judgment reads as follows:-
“Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 9, Rules 1 and 2 – Specific Relief
Act, 1872, Section 37 – Temporary injunctions – Principles governing interim
injunctions – Person seeking injunction should establish three aspects a) he has
prima facie case b) balance of convenience in his favour c) Status quo should
be maintained – Prima facie case can be said to exist if there is reasonable and
arguable case for petitioner and it is not necessary that petitioner should make
out strong prima facie case – Court should lean in favour of maintenance of
status quo once arguable case for petitioner is made out – If in event of
petitioner losing his case respondent could be compensated in terms of money –
“.
7.The learned counsels on both sides have jointly submitted that the
connected suits, namely, in O.S.No.623 of 2005 on the file of II Additional
District Munsif, Trichy, O.S.No.37 of 2010 on the file of Principal District
Munsif, Trichy and one other suit in O.S.No.216 of 2010 on the file of I
Additional District Munsif, Trichy, are pending. Hence, the learned counsels
have sought for joint trial, after transferring the cases to the file of
Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy.
8.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced
by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the order and decretal
order passed in the civil miscellaneous appeal, this court is of the considered
opinion that (1) O.S.No.623 of 2005 has been filed by the 2nd
respondent/Mahalakshmi herein against the defendants namely Arumugam and
Mrs.Veeramani. Both the 2nd defendants are not parties in the above revision
petition. O.S.No.37 of 2010 has been filed by the 2nd respondent herein against
10 defendants namely, Pachiammal, Kokila, Thirumathi Selva, Selvakumar,
Velayudham, Chitiramorthy, Muruganantham, Kamakshi, Thangapappa and Puzhagmanai
@ Muthukrishna Kavirayyar. Out of these 10 defendants, the 10the defendant
alone is party in the revision petition. O.S.No.216 of 2010 has been filed by
one Sathiaseelan, who is the 2nd revision petitioner herein against the 1st and
2nd respondents herein and three others namely chitira murthy, Selvakumar and
Velayudham. These three persons are not parties in the above revision petition.
Therefore, this court, in the absence of the above mentioned parties in the
revision petition, cannot transfer all the above mentioned three suits for a
joint trial before the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy.
9.This court further opines that the learned appellant court namely
Additional District and Sessions Court, Trichy after well-considering the
averments of the parties and after verification of the relevant records, had
allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal. As such, this court is not warranted to
interfere with the findings in the C.M.A.No.79 of 2010. Hence, this courts
confirms the order made in C.M.A.No.79 of 2010 dated 06.05.2011.
10.However, this court directs the learned Principal Subordinate Court,
Trichy to dispose of the case in O.S.No.436 of 2010 within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of this order, without being influenced by this
court’s discussions.
11.In the result, the above civil revision petition is disposed of with
the above observations. Consequently, the order and decretal order passed in
C.M.A.No.79 of 2010 dated 06.05.2011 on the file of Additional District Sessions
Court/Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy reversing the order and decretal order
dated 20.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.319 of 2010 in O.S.No.436 of 2010 on the file
of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy is confirmed. Connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.
skn
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.II, Trichy.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Trichy.