Dismissed

P.Narayanan, v. Rebeek Raja, Rep.by His Power

Madras HC13 Oct 2011CRP(MD)/671/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a lower court's order rejecting an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The court held the appeal as not legally or factually maintainable given the disputed nature of lease possession facts and remanded the primary suit for prompt disposal.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; lower court order confirmed; primary suit to be disposed of before December 2011.

P.Narayanan, Vs Rebeek Raja, Rep.by His Power — Property and Title | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.671 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011

¶3

P.Narayanan .. Petitioner/2^nd Respondent/Revision Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.Rabeek Raja represented by his power agent Sahadevan. .. Respondent/Plaintiff/Respondent

¶6

2.The Arulmegu Oonaiyur Meenakshi Sundareshwarar Thirukovil by its Trustee Sivashanmuga Poochiya Nayacker, Marungapuri, Manapparai Taluk, Trichy District. .. Respondent/2^nd Defendant/Respondent

¶7

Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 05.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Manapparai.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.AL.Gandhimathi

¶9

ORDER

¶10

This Civil Revision Petition has been directed against the order dated 05.08.2010 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Manapparai.

¶11

The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.236 of 2000 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioner and second respondent have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the revision petitioner as petitioner has come forward with an application in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose mentioned therein. The Court below after considering the contentions putforth on either side has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/second defendant as revision petitioner.

¶12

Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 as well as in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 and the order passed therein, notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the stage of admission.

¶13

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the suit property is the absolute property of the second respondent, who has been arrayed as first defendant in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 and the father of the revision petitioner has taken the same on lease and now the revision petitioner has been enjoying the same as a lessee and the first respondent/plaintiff has unnecessarily filed Original Suit No.236 of 2000 by way of setting forth false and frivolous grounds and under the said circumstances for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit property, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 and the Court below without considering the object of filing the petition in question has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with.

¶15

For considering the submission made on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the averments mentioned in the plaint filed in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 and also the stand taken on the side of the revision petitioner. In the plaint, it has been specifically stated that the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as a lessee and the defendants have been making arrangements to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment and therefore they should be restrained by means of permanent injunction.

¶16

In the present petition, it has been specifically stated that the revision petitioner/ petitioner/second defendant has been enjoying the suit property as a lessee. Therefore the real issue, which involves in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 is as to whether the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as a lessee or as to whether the revision petitioner/petitioner/second defendant has been enjoying the same as a lessee? Considering the nature of the issue involved in Original Suit No.236 of 2000, the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 need not be granted and further Original Suit No.236 of 2000 has been filed only for getting a decree of perpetual injunction and on that score also the present petition is not legally and factually maintainable and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.1005 of 2009 in Original Suit No.236 of 2000 by the District Munsif Court, Manapparai is confirmed. However the District Munsif Court, Manapparai is strictly directed to dispose of Original Suit No.236 of 2000 before the end of December, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶18

Sd/Assistant Registrar (A.E)

¶19

/True Copy/

¶20

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

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S)

¶22

¶23

¶24

The District Munsif, Manapparai.

¶25

Copy To:

¶26

The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶27

1 cc to M/s.AL.Ganthimathi, Advocate, SR No.35692

¶28

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.671 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶29

13.10.2011

¶30

smn RJ/20.10.11 3p/4c

¶31

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

P.Narayanan, v. Rebeek Raja, Rep.by His Power

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Narayanan, v. Rebeek Raja, Rep.by His Power

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

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

Nainar Sankar Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

M. Ponniah Vs P. Sesammal

Mohamed Ali, Vs Pappammal

G.Narayanaswami, Vs Dhanalakshmi

Sarafunisha, Vs Jeyakumar