Allowed

M. Vellingiri v. M. Pazhanisami

Madras HC3 Nov 2014CMA/2968/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside ex parte ad-interim injunction orders passed by the Trial Court below as they were issued mechanically without applying mind or stating reasons. The parties were directed to maintain status quo pending disposal of the underlying interim applications.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; Trial Court directed to dispose applications within two weeks; status quo to be maintained.

M. Vellingiri Vs M. Pazhanisami — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.11.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

C.M.A. Nos. 2968 & 2969 of 2014 &

¶6

M.P.Nos. 1 of 2014

¶7

M. Vellingiri
2. M. Balasubramaniam
3. Mr.B. Samboornam
4. Mrs. B. Jothimani
5. Muthusami Gounder ...Appellants in both the appeals/
Defendants
Vs.
M. Palanisami ...Respondent in both the appeals/
Plaintiff
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals as against the order dated
19.06.2014 passed in I.A.Nos. 451 & 452 of 2014 respectively in O.S.
No. 140 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tirupur.
For Appellants : Mr.S.K. Rakhunathan
For Respondent : Mr.R. Bharathkumar
J U D G M E N T

¶8

The defendants in O.S. No. 140 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tirupur, are before this Court, aggrieved over the ex parte orders of ad-interim injunction granted in I.A. Nos. 451 & 452 of 2014, on 19.06.2014, in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein.

¶9

The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2014 for permanent injunction stating that he is doing business in the name and style of “PALANISAMY DYEING”, which was started by him in the year 1981and that he is the sole proprietor of the said dyeing unit. However, the defendants/appellants herein, claiming right over the property, where the said unit was put up, are

¶10

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

¶11

preventing the respondent from carrying on his business. Hence, the respondent filed the above said suit. Pending the suit, I.A. Nos. 451 & 452 of 2014 were filed by the respondent seeking temporary injunction. By orders dated 19.06.2014, ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted, in both the I.A.s. Challenging the same, as already stated, the present appeals have been filed by the defendants.

¶12

Mr.S.K. Rakhunathan, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that a mere reading of the impugned orders would show that the orders have been passed mechanically, contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court repeatedly. Moreover, the respondent, taking advantage of the said orders, has taken away all the valuable machineries. In fact, by granting the interim orders, the Trial Court has virtually decreed the suit, he would contend.

¶13

On the other hand, Mr.R. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the appellants have already taken part in the proceedings by filing counter and that the Trial Court may be directed to dispose of the applications within a period of two weeks. The learned counsel would also state that the parties would maintain status quo.

¶14

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Court below would reveal that the said orders have been passed mechanically, without application of mind and without giving any reason as to how prima facie case is made out. In a number of judgments, the Honourable Apex Court and this Court, have deprecated the practice of orders being passed mechanically, devoid of reasons. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside.

¶15

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the applications within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, since the appellants and the respondent are brothers, it is appropriate to direct both parties to maintain status quo, as on date. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected M.Ps are closed.

¶16

//True Copy//

¶17

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

The Prl. Dist. Judge, Tirupur.

¶22

1 CC to Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate SR.No. 52181

¶23

1 CC to Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan, Advocate SR.No. 51883

¶24

C.M.A. Nos. 2968 & 2969 of 2014

¶25

NG (CO) PSI (14.11.2014)

¶26

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

M. Vellingiri v. M. Pazhanisami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Vellingiri v. M. Pazhanisami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thanseela Begam Vs P.Kaleeswaran

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Raghu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Branch Manager Vs P.Murugan

The Oriental Insurance Vs Sakunthala

A. Paulien Vs G. Ravichandran