Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Kovendhan vs T.Murugesan on 4 August, 2022

Author: R.N.Manjula

Bench: R.N.Manjula

                                                                             C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 04.08.2022

                                                            CORAM

                                    THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                                 C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022
                                                          and
                                                 CMP.No.12693 of 2022


                     1.S.Kovendhan
                     2.K.Sivalingam                           ...             Petitioners


                                                              Vs.

                     T.Murugesan                              ...             Respondent


                     PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
                     of India, to set aside the judgement and decree in CMA.No.9 of 2018
                     dated 18.10.2019 by the Sub Judge, Vaniyambadi , confirming fair and
                     decretal order dated 14.07.2017 made in I.A.No.435 of 2015 in
                     OS.No.51 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif
                     Vaniyambadi under the circumstance of the case.


                                      For Petitioners   :    Mr.R.T.Sundari for M.P.Jayaprakash




                                                         ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgement and decree in CMA.No.9 of 2018 dated 18.10.2019 by the 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022 Sub Court, Vaniyambadi

2.The civil revision petitioners are the appellants in the civil miscellaneous appeal and defendants 2 and 3 in the suit in OS.No.51 of 2015 of the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Vaniyapadi, filed by the respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.435 of 2015 seeking for temporary injunction and the same was allowed on 14.07.2017. Aggrieved over that, defendants 2 and 3 have filed CMA.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Sub Court, Vaniyampadi and the same was dismissed on 18.10.2019 by confirming the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over that, the civil revision petition has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petitioners alone are in possession of the suit property and the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022 plaintiff managed to get the order of injunction and is causing disturbance to their possession by taking advantage of the injunction order. It further submitted that by virtue of the settlement deed dated 23.12.2014 they are entitled to the suit property and they are in possession of the same.

6. Records would show that the very suit itself has been filed to challenge the validity of the settlement deed dated 23.12.2014 by seeking the relief of declaration that the settlement deed dated 23.12.2014 is null and void and for permanent injunction.

7. The respondent, who could prove his prima facie possession over the suit property, has got an order of temporary injunction and that has been confirmed by the Appellate Court as well. Despite the petitioners stated that they are being constantly disturbed by the respondent in view of the injunction order, no steps have been taken by the defendants to subject themselves for an early trial. Further, despite the order of injunction was in force from 2017 and five years have lapsed, the defendants did not file any application to speed up the trial. Instead, this revision petition has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Sub Judge, who confirmed the order of temporary 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022 injunction.

8. The pleadings of the respective parties raised in the injunction application would show that there a necessity to decide about the validity of the settlement deed dated 23.12.2014. The said issue is essentially the primary issue that has to be settled in the suit as well. Taking into consideration of the long pendency of the suit and also the primary issue involved in the suit, I feel that there are no grounds for interference. However, it is appropriate to impress the learned Trial Judge to expedite the trial.

In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of and the learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.





                                                                                        04.08.2022

                     Index                    : Yes/No
                     Speaking Order           : Yes / No

                     Rs/jrs




                     4/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                  C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022




                     5/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                           C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022



                                                                           R.N.MANJULA, J.,

                                                                                        RS/ jrs
                     To

                           1. The Sub Judge, Vaniyambadi .

2. Additional District Munsif Vaniyambadi C.R.P.No.2455 of 2022 04.08.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis