BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15/04/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(PD).No.488 OF 2009 Sevalakkal ... Petitioner Vs Gurusamy ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and executable order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Aruppukottai in C.M.A.No.10 of 2008 dated 16/9/2008 by reversing the fair and executable order of the learned District Munsif Court of Arupukottai in I.A.No.1514 of 2007 in O.S.No.343 of 2007. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Natarajan ^ - - - - - :ORDER
The revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision
petition as against the order dated 16/9/2008 in C.M.A.No.10 of 1008 in
I.A.No.1514 of 2007 in O.S.No.343 of 2007 passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Arupukottai in allowing the appeal preferred by the
respondent/appellant/defendant.
2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.154 of 2007 dated
6/3/2003 has inter alia directed that both parties should not cut the Karuvel
trees in the suit property and that the existing state of affairs will have to
be continued till the disposal of the suit for a period of six months from
6/3/2008 and further, the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has been
directed to take steps in regard to the conduct of the trial of the main case.
3. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the trial Court in
I.A.No.1514 of 2007 dated 6/3/2003 the respondent/defendant has preferred Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.10 of 2008 before the First Appellate Authority and the
First Appellate Authority after contest and on hearing both sides and on
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, has allowed the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. Being dissatisfied with the order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.10
of 2008 being allowed by the First Appellate Court, the revision
petitioner/plaintiff has projected this Civil Revision Petition before this
Court.
5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the
First Appellate Authority should have seen that earlier O.S.No.91 of 2002 has
been filed by the respondent for injunction which has been dismissed holding
that the respondent is not in lawful possession of the suit property and
further, the findings rendered in the said proceedings in O.S.No.91 of 2002 are
binding on the parties and moreover, the order of the trial Court in directing
the parties to maintain status-quo and not to cut Karuvel trees pending suit, is
in consonance with the well settled principles of law and therefore, the First
Appellate Court should not have interfered with the order of the trial Court
passed in I.A., so easily and therefore, prays for allowing the Civil Revision
Petition in the interest of justice.
6. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.343 of
2007 wherein the main relief itself is for temporary injunction restraining the
defendant, his men, etc. from any way cut or remove the Karuvel trees. It
appears that the pleadings have been completed before the trial Court and the
suit is ready for trial. As a matter of fact, when the main suit itself has
been filed for the relief of injunction by the revision petitioner/plaintiff and
when I.A.No.1514 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner before the trial Court
is also for the relief of interim injunction, the relief is one and the same, in
the considered opinion of this Court. If that be the case, then this Court is
of the considered view that the trial Court should have taken up the main case
for trial and ought not to have passed the orders in issue in I.A.No.1514 of
2007 dated 6/3/2003. However, the trial Court has not resorted to such a
course. But the Appellate Authority in C.M.A filed by the respondent/defendant
has allowed the C.M.A., reversing the order of the trial Court passed in
I.A.No.1514 of 2007 dated 6/3/2003.
7. Inasmuch as the main relief sought for in the suit relates to the
permanent injunction and taking note of another fact that in I.A.No.1514 of 2007
the relief of interim injunction has been prayed for and since the suit is ready
for conducting trial after completion of pleadings, this Court on a conspectus
of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion is of the view
that as a matter of prudent course, the main suit itself can be taken up by the
trial Court for final hearing and disposal and in that view of the matter, on
the basis of Equity, Fair play and Good conscience, directs the trial Court to
dispose of the main suit O.S.No.343 of 2007 on its file within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are
directed to lend their assistance and co-operation to the trial Court in regard
to the completion of proceedings. It is made clear that the trial Court shall
give adequate opportunities to both parties to let in oral and documentary
evidence to substantiate their case, in the manner known to law. Further, this
Court directs the parties to the suit to maintain status-quo till the disposal
of the suit.
8. With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
mvs.
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai
2. The District Munsif, Arupukottai
2. The D.R.(Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, – to
watch and report