Dismissed

M. Ponniah v. P. Sesammal

Madras HC12 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/406/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court discharged a single bench dismissed civil revision petitions challenging orders refusing relief on interlocutory applications in a suit for perpetual injunction. The court held the applications were not framed under proper procedural provisions. Appeals were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions dismissed; interim orders confirmed without costs; liberty granted to file proper petition.

M. Ponniah Vs P. Sesammal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 12.10.2011

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.406 to 408 of 2011

¶7

and

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011

¶9

M.Ponniah .. Petitioner in all C.R.Ps.

¶10

Vs.

¶11

P.Sesammal .. Respondent in all C.R.Ps.

¶12

Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 01.02.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1102, 1104 and 1153 of 2010 in Original Suit No.572 of 2010 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji in all C.R.Ps.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram in all C.R.Ps.

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

These Civil Revision Petitions have been directed against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1102, 1104 and 1153 of 2010 in Original Suit No.572 of 2010 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶17

The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.572 of 2010 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. During pendency of the same, the defendant as petitioner has filed the petition in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 so as to permit him to mark xerox copy of agreement and the petition in Interlocutory Application No.1104 of 2010 so as to direct the respondent therein to produce original agreement and the petition in Interlocutory Application No.1153 of 2010 so as to receive the affidavits of the witnesses found in the agreement. The Court below after considering the rival contentions raised on either side has dismissed all the petitions. Against the dismissal orders https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed at the instance of the petitioner/defendant as revision petitioner.

¶18

¶19

Before perpending the rival submissions made on either

¶20

side, it would be more useful to look into the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.572 of 2010 as well as the material averments mentioned in the plaint. In the plaint, it has been specifically stated that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed 09.07.2007 and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and since the defendant has been making arrangements to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, the present suit has been instituted for the relief of perpetual injunction.

¶21

The defence taken on the side of the defendant is that the defendant has not really sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and since the plaintiff is doing Government service, she promised to get a loan by way of utilising the suit property and under the said circumstances the sale deed dated 09.07.2007 has been executed in her name nominally and the same does not convey title to her and in fact possession has not been given to her and further on the very same day, the plaintiff has executed an agreement and thereby agreed to re-convey the suit property in favour of the defendant.

¶22

During pendency of Original Suit No.572 of 2010, the petitions in question have been filed for the reliefs sought for therein. The first and foremost petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010, wherein it has been specifically prayed to permit the petitioner to mark copy of agreement made in between the plaintiff and defendant.

¶23

The specific defence taken on the side of the respondent/plaintiff in all the petitions is that no agreement has come into existence on 09.07.2007 amongst the petitioner and respondent and therefore the respondent is not bound to produce original of the alleged agreement.

¶24

The Court below after accepting the defence taken on the side of the respondent/ plaintiff has dismissed all the petitions.

¶25

The main defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner/defendant is that on 09.07.2007, the respondent/plaintiff has executed an agreement and thereby agreed to re-convey the suit property in his favour and original agreement is with the respondent/plaintiff.

¶26

As stated earlier Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 has been filed for permitting the petitioner to mark xerox copy of the alleged agreement. In fact, the petition in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 has not been filed by way of quoting proper provision of law and further the relief sought for therein is not in consonance with the proper provisions of law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The revision petitioner ought to have filed a petition under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by way of setting forth the reasons for marking xerox and also the reasons for delay.

¶27

¶28

But such reliefs have not been sought for in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 and therefore the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 is not in consonance with the proper provision of law. Under the said circumstances, the petition filed in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same.

¶29

In Interlocutory Application No.1104 of 2010, it is prayed to direct the respondent to produce the alleged original agreement. The main defence taken on the side of the respondent is that no agreement has come into existence. Since such kind of defence has been taken on the side of the respondent, the respondent cannot be directed to produce such agreement and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below in Interlocutory Application No.1104 of 2010 is also proper and the same does not require any interference.

¶30

In Interlocutory Application No.1153 of 2010, it is prayed to receive affidavits of the witnesses found in the alleged agreement. It has already been pointed out that the relief has not been properly sought for in Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. Since Interlocutory Application No.1102 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed, the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.1153 of 2010 cannot be granted. The Court below has rightly dismissed the same. In view of the foregoing narration of factual aspects, this Court has not found any error in the orders passed by the Court below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶31

In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.1102, 1104 and 1153 of 2010 in Original Suit No.572 of 2010 by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil are confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file proper petition so as to mark xerox copy of alleged agreement by way of quoting proper provision of law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/True Copy/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

The First Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.CKM.Appaji, Advocate Sr.No.35449

¶39

+1cc to Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate Sr.no.35425 smn

¶40

ssk/28.10.2011 /4c-3p/-

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.406 to 408 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 12.10.2011

M. Ponniah v. P. Sesammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ponniah v. P. Sesammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishnan Vs Muthuselvi, F/25

Ponnumony Vs Hentry

Gandhimathi Vs R.George S/O.D.M.Raja

Lakshmi W/O.Gopal Vs Perumal S/O.Pasuvan

Nainar Sankar Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

Mohamed Ali, Vs Pappammal