Madras High Court
A.Nalendran vs A.Lognathan on 3 September, 2018
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 03.09.2018 Coram The Honourable Ms.Justice P.T. ASHA C.R.P.(PD).No.3497 of 2010 A.Nalendran .. Petitioner Versus 1.A.Lognathan 2.S.Mala 3.A.Chinnaponnu 4.A.Radhakrishnan 5.S.Eswari 6.Sivagami 7.P.Sangarammal 8.V.Thangamani @ Pushpa .. Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.06.2010 made in I.A.No.777 of 2018 in O.S.No.32 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem. For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manokaran For Respondents: Mr.V.R.Rajashekaran for R1 and R2 No appearance for R3 to R5 and R8 Not ready in notice R6 and R7 ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem in I.A.No.777 of 2018 in O.S.No.32 of 2005, in and by which the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the Revision Petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay further proceedings in O.S.32 of 2005 till the disposal of C.R.P.No.1133 of 2005. The said application has been filed on the premise that the earlier suit O.S.No.419 of 1999 which has been filed by the Revision Petitioner against the 1st respondent for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of pathway, was directly in issue in the subsequent suit in O.S.No.32 of 2005 and therefore, since the matter in issue in both the suits were similar, there must be a Stay of the suit O.S.No.32 of 2005 till the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition which arises out of the proceedings in O.S.No.419 of 1999.
2.The relief claimed in O.S.No.419 of 1999 is for an injunction and a mandatory injunction restraining the 1st plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.32 of 2005 who is the 1st respondent herein from selling any portion of the suit pathway and direct him to restore the suit pathway to a width of 12' on the North South 50' on the East West to its original length.
3.The relief claimed in O.S.No.32 of 2005 is the suit filed by the 1st respondent herein, who was the 1st defendant in the earlier suit and the 2nd respondent herein for a Partition and separate the possession of their 35/96 share in the suit properties.
4.It is evident that the matter in issue in both the suits and the properties involved are different and distinct and by no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the issues are same in both the suits. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
03.09.2018 mps To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Salem.
P.T. ASHA. J, mps C.R.P.(PD).No.3497 of 2010 03.09.2018