BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17/08/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.1301 of 2008 MP.NO.1/2008 1. R.Muthumani 2. Rathinam R Petitioners Vs Subramanian M Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed on 30.01.2008 in CMA.No.13/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai reversing the order in IA.No.242/2006 in OS.No.152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District and dismiss the same by allowing this revision. !For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Balasundaram ^For Respondent ... Mr.J.Anandkumar :ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and
decretal order dated 30.1.2008 made in CMA.No.13/2007 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, reversing the order in IA.No.242/2006 in
OS.No.152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the above said
suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the said suit for permanent
injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for mandatory
injunction, directing the defendants to restore electricity connection to the
motor attached to the bore well, from which water is drawn to the over head
tank, which was used by the plaintiff.
3. Pending the suit, the respondent/plaintiff sought for mandatory
injunction in IA.No.242/2006, directing the defendants to restore electricity
connection to the motor attached to the bore well and the same was dismissed by
the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, Pudukottai. Aggrieved against the said
order, the respondent preferred CMA.No.13/2007 before the learned Subordinate
Judge, Pudukottai, who granted the said relief and directed the petitioners to
restore the electricity connection to the motor attached to the bore well within
a month from the date of the order. As against the said order, this civil
revision petition has been filed by the defendants.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
is that when the prayer in the main suit and the interim relief are one and
same, no relief could be granted and the order dated 30.1.2008 in
CMA.No.13/2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai reversing the order
in IA.No.242/2006 in OS.No.152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 by the District Munsif
Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District is not proper.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would
contend that when the tenancy is not disputed, there is a prima facie case for
the grant of mandatory injunction for the reason that if the electricity
connection is not restored, then the respondent would be put to irreparable loss
and injury, which cannot be compensated. He would further contend that
considering the balance of convenience in favour of the respondent, the lower
appellate court has granted interim mandatory injunction and thus supported the
grant of order passed by the lower appellate authority, citing the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court to strengthen his contention.
6. In the case of Jayachitra and another Vs. ANS Nall Azhagu and
others [2005-5-CTC-418], the Division Bench of this court has held that for
considering the question of grant of injunction, a court is required to find out
a prima facie case in favour of the person seeking injunction. The question of
irreparable loss to such applicant and question of balance of convenience and
the very nature of things, any discussion on such aspects at the time of
considering the question of injunction can only be a prima facie consideration
and a detailed analysis of various materials is not to be undertaken at the
time of consideration of such interim applications. It further observed that
when the matter comes up in appeal, the appellate authority is also equally
expected to consider such aspects prima facie and a detailed discussion
regarding pros and cons of the rival cases is to be eschewed as otherwise the
parties may be prejudiced at the time of trial. Prima facie case means the
party is not expected to prove his case to the hilt. The decisions reported in
the cases of Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited, Hyderabad
[2006-1-MLJ-542], Mariappan and another Vs. AR.Safiullah and others [2008-6-MLJ-
1117] and Sri Maruthi Marine Industries Ltd by its Manager Vs.Munusamy [2006-4-
MLJ-246] are to the same effect.
7. The respondent is the tenant under the petitioners in respect of
the Shops in Door Nos.345/2, 345/3 and 345/4, running a Firm under the name and
style of M/s.Sri Balaji and Sri Saravana Groups and also in occupation of the
residential portion at the back portion of the Shops on a monthly rent of
Rs.2000/-. It is the case of the respondent that there was electricity
connection to draw water from the bore well to the over head tank and same was
used by the respondent and his family members for all purposes and in order to
evict the respondent from the premises, the petitioners have disconnected the
electricity connection from 31.3.2006, which has caused irreparable injury and
hardship to the respondent.
8. The trial court has declined to grant interim mandatory
injunction on the sole ground that the respondent has not produced any lease
deed to prove the lease agreement between the petitioners and the respondent and
failed to consider the fact that the tenancy is not disputed by the petitioners.
The lower appellate court, after considering the rival contentions made by the
petitioners, has found prima facie case for granting interim mandatory
injunction and has exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent and held
that the balance of convenience for granting interim mandatory injunction was in
favour of the respondent.
9. Before the court below, the petitioners contended that there was
no water connection at any point of time, which was refuted by the petitioners,
pointing out to the report of the Advocate Commissioner that there were pipe
lines leading to the portion in occupation of the respondent from the over head
tank, indicating that there was water and electricity connections for the said
purpose prior to the disconnection.
10. From the above, it is seen that the petitioners have
disconnected the water and electricity connection, thus prevented the respondent
from using the water from the bore well, thus causing irreparable hardship and
injury to the respondent. The necessary criteria for establishing a prima
facie case has been shown by the respondent and in such event, non interference
by the court would definitely result in irreparable injury and the balance of
convenience is also in favour of the respondent.
11. The lower appellate court has found from the pleadings and the
materials placed on record that the respondent’s case required consideration or
otherwise that would result irreparable hardship to the respondent and granted
an order of mandatory injunction. In such view of the matter, I am unable to
find any irregularity or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated
30.1.2008 in CMA.No.13/2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai
reversing the order in IA.No.242/2006 in OS.No.152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 by the
District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai, and warrants no interference by
this court and hence, the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 is liable to be
confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed.
12. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.
Srcm
To:
1.The Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai
2.The District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai