Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. From the above it is clear that though the lease period was for Nine years, on 31.7.2006 and 19.8.2006, the second respondent sent letters of termination of the lease and required handing over of the possession of the property within three months. On 4.8.2006 the first respondent sent a reply to the second respondent expressing his inability to vacate and handing over possession of the property as required by him. On 11.10.2006 itself the second respondent executed a sale deed with regard to the entire building in favour of the petitioner. On 28.9.2006 the first respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.8791 of 2006 against the second respondent for bare and permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-second respondent herein and his men from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the premises. He also filed I.A.No:20331 of 2006 along with the said suit and also obtained ad interim injunction. On 28.11.2006 the defendant/second respondent filed a counter and also filed I.A.No:21290 of 2006 to vacate the ad interim injunction granted. On 27.12.2006, a common order was passed in both the I.As and the injunction already granted in I.A.No:20331 of 2006 filed by the first respondent was dismissed and the I.A.No:21290 of 2006 filed by the second respondent to vacate the said ad interim injunction was allowed. On 26.2.2007, the revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No:1318 of 2007 before the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Chennai and he also filed I.A.No:3505 of 2007 in the said suit for ad interim injunction and the same was granted on 27.2.2007 till 8.3.2007. On 28.2.2007 the first respondent also filed I.A.No:3655 of 2007 to vacate the said interim injunction. On 1.3.2007, CRP.No:635 of 2007 was filed by the first respondent against the order injunction order passed in I.A.No:3505 of 2007 in O.S.No:1318 of 2007 and this Court stayed the said order passed in the said I.A by order dated 2.3.2007. After getting stay of the order of the 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in I.A.No:3505 of 2007, the first respondent withdrew the vacate stay petition I.A.No:3655 of 2007 filed before the 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. On 14.3.2007, the first respondent also filed W.P.NO:9871 of 2007 to restore his possession of the property. On 22.3.2007, the first respondent filed I.A.No:5269 of 2007 in O.S.No:8791 of 2006 for injunction against the petitioner and on 23.3.2007 an order of injunction was granted in the said I.A., against the petitioner. After granting an order of injunction by the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, as referred to above on 27.3.2007, the first respondent gave a letter to the Registry of this court to withdraw the CRP.No.635 of 2007.

10. Earlier when the revision petitioner filed O.S.No:1318 of 2007 before the 12th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai on 26.2.2007 and obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No:3505 of 2007 on 27.2.2007, the first respondent filed I.A.No:3655 of 2007 to vacate the said interim injunction obtained by the revision petitioner. However, after getting stay in M.P.No:1 of 2007 in CRP.No:635 of 2007, the first respondent withdrew the I.A.No:3655 of 2007 filed by him before the 12th Assistant Judge to vacate the injunction obtained by the revision petitioner. Similarly he also gave a letter to the Registry on 27.3.2007 for withdrawal of the CRP itself. The conduct of the first respondent in filing I.A.No:3655 of 2007 and withdrawing the same after getting stay from this Court in M.P.No:1 of 2007 in CRP.No:635 of 2007 and later on giving letter to withdraw the very CRP itself at the time when the matters are posted to be decided are condemnable and therefore there is force in the contention of Mr.s.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the first respondent is indulging in forum shopping and abusing the process of the courts. Similarly, the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai after vacating the ex parte interim injunction order obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent in I.A.No:21290 of 2006 in O.S.No.8791 of 2006 ought not to have retained the suit on its file, because the suit itself which is only for bare injunction that too against the erstwhile owner has become infructuous when once it comes to know that the suit is filed against the erstwhile owner and not against the present owner. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. Machado Brothers and others reported in 2004 (11) SCC 168, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: