Madras High Court
Gandhi vs Sakthivel on 24 November, 2008
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.PD.No.3871 OF 2008 Gandhi ... Petitioner Vs 1. Sakthivel 2. Muthuraja 3. Manivel 4. Mummudian 5. Sadayappan ... Respondents This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,seeking for a direction, to direct the learned District Munsif,Attur to dispose of the I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.340 of 2006 under the supervisory jurisdiction. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran O R D E R
The revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this present civil revision petition praying for a direction to be issued to the learned District Munsif, Attur to dispose of I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.340 of 2006 pending on his file at an early date.
2. The revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.340 of 2006 praying for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3. It is represented before this Court that the defendants have filed their written statements. It is to be noted that after filing of the counter the case has been posted for enquiry on 8.6.2007. An advance hearing in I.A.No.906 of 2008 has been allowed by the trial Court on 12.8.2008.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff brings it to the notice of this Court that in I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.340 of 2006, arguments on the side of the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff were heard by the trial Court as early as on 1.9.2008 and that for the respondents' side arguments, the case has been adjourned to different dates , time to time and lastly the next hearing date in the said I.A. is listed in December 2008,(though the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is not able to give the exact date of hearing of the I.A. 886 of 2008 before the trial Court).
5. In this connection, it is relevant to point out that Order 39 Rule 3 A of CPC enjoins that an interim injunction application has to be disposed of within 30 days. As far as the present case is concerned, for hearing of the respondents' side argument alone, the case has been adjourned to different dates from 2.9.2007 till December 2008 and the procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge in this regard is not proper in the considered opinion of this Court.
6.In fine, on the basis of equity, fair play and on the principles of natural justice and even as per law, this Court directs the trial Court to hear the arguments on the side of the respondents in I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.340 of 2006 within a period of two weeks from today and to dispose of the same to prevent aberration of justice. The trial Court is given liberty to advance the hearing of the in I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.340 of 2006 suo motu from December 2008 to any other date in November 2008 and after providing due opportunities to all the parties and directed to dispose of the said I.A.No.886 of 2006 in O.S.No.340 of 2006 within the time frame fixed by this Court and to report the compliance to this Court . However, since the main suit itself is only for the relief of permanent injunction and since the pleadings are completed, the trial Court is also directed to dispose of the main suit within a period of three months from today, after framing necessary issues ,(if no issues framed already) and to report the compliance to this Court. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed off in the above terms. No costs.
sg To The District Munsif, Attur