Madras High Court
P.K.Sathishkumar vs V.Amirthalingam on 19 July, 2021
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
and
CMP.No.3002 of 2019
[Through Video Conferencing]
P.K.Sathishkumar ... Petitioner / 6th defendant
vs.
V.Amirthalingam ... Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India praying to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 11.08.2018 made
in I.A.No.480 of 2017 in O.S.No.702 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional
Distrit Munsif, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Sankaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan
*****
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the 6th defendant in O.S. No.702 of 2015 now pending on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
2.The said suit had been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as a cultivating tenant and also restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit property as a cultivating tenant except by due process of law.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that interference should be done with respect to the order passed in I.A.No.480 of 2017 dated 11.08.2018. The said Interlocutory Application had been filed by the revision petitioner herein / 6th defendant in the suit.
4.The revision petitioner took advantage of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and claimed that the suit is barred by law namely under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. It is claimed that the suit had been filed for interim injunction and there is no relief sought for declaration that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. On that ground, the said application was laid before the trial Court. The plaintiff answered that particular allegation by stating that the suit was only for injunction and not whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant and therefore such a declaration is not required and the Civil Court can grant injunction http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019 restraining the defendants from interfering with possession except by due process of law.
5.The learned I Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore who took up the said application for consideration, also stated that the relief sought by the plaintiff is only for a limited purpose and that Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act does not apply to the facts of the case. It had also been observed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore that for deciding any application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, a reading of the plaint alone will have to be done and if a reading of the plaint reveals existence of a cause of action and the suit is maintainable under Section 9 of CPC, then, the plaint need not be rejected.
6.Heard Mr.K.R.Sankaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan, learned counsel for the respondent.
7.A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff has always claimed a right as a cultivating tenant. Thereafter, the plaintiff had stated that the defendant had interfered with possession and seeks to protect possession. No occasion had arisen for the plaintiff to seek any declaration since that stand had not been contested. The relief sought is for a limited purpose and as a http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019 matter of fact even the relief is sought that injunction should be granted restraining eviction except by due process of law. The defendants have a right to take necessary action in accordance with law.
8.There is no necessity to interfere with the order passed and therefore, I concur with the order of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Coimbatore.
9.The Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Let the parties join issues by filing written statement. I am confident that necessary issues will be framed and if in the written statement, the defendant raises an issue of maintainability, the learned I Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore may also framed issue on that particular aspect and pass a Judgment after considering the evidence recorded.
10.With the said observation the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No order as to costs.
19.07.2021 Internet: Yes/No ssi http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019 To
1.The I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ssi CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019 19.07.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6