Disposed

D. Viji Deivanayagam v. K.G. Ramakrishna Raja

Madras HC9 Jan 2014CRP(MD)/31/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, under Article 227, directed the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, to dispose of two pending interim injunction applications in a civil suit regarding property possession and alienation within two months, addressing unnecessary delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of I.A.Nos.201 and 202 in O.S.No.98 of 2010 on or before 31.01.2014.

D. Viji Deivanayagam Vs K.G. Ramakrishna Raja — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.01.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶6

C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.31 and 32 of 2014

¶7

D.Viji Deivanayagam .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

K.G.Ramakrishna Raja .. Respondent in both C.R.Ps.

¶10

Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal to dispose of I.A.Nos.201 and 202 of 2010 in O.S.No.98 of 2010 forthwith and pass such further or other orders.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rajkumar in both C.R.Ps.

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

The fourth defendant is before this Court seeking early disposal of I.A.Nos.201 and 202 of 2010 filed by the respondent herein.

¶14

2.The respondent herein filed suit for permanent injunction and in the said suit I.A.No.201 of 2010 has been filed for getting an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent herein and I.A.No.202 of 2010 has been filed for getting an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein not to alienate the property and an order of interim injunction has been obtained on 29.04.2010. The petitioner entered appearance and filed counter affidavit on 28.07.2010 itself and thereafter the matter is being adjourned for passing order, even though the trial Court already heard the matter. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

3.Considering the fact that the petitioner seeks only early disposal of the matter, the respondent will not be prejudiced if any order is given. Therefore no notice is ordered to the respondent and notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

¶16

4.Heard Mr.D.Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶17

5.A perusal of the records would reveal that the ex-parte order of injunction was passed on 29.04.2010 and the petitioner promptly filed counter affidavit on 28.07.2010. Thereafter the matter was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ adjourned for enquiry till 10.02.2012, on which date the petitioner herein argued the matter and the respondent took time and after that he

¶18

¶19

argued the matter on 15.02.2012. For almost two years, the matter is being adjourned and no order has been passed. The above facts would only show that the applications have been unnecessarily kept pending without passing orders. Therefore this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of I.A.Nos.201 and 202 of 2010 in O.S.No.98 of 2010 on or before 31.01.2014.

¶20

6.With the above direction, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Smn Sd/Assistant Registrar[RTI]

¶22

/True copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.

¶26

+1 cc to Mr.D.Rajkumar, Advocate SR.No.2640.

¶27

COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.31 and 32 of 2014

¶28

Dated:09.01.2014.

¶29

2P/3C RPB 21.01.2014

¶30

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

D. Viji Deivanayagam v. K.G. Ramakrishna Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Viji Deivanayagam v. K.G. Ramakrishna Raja

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

Thangaraj, Vs Peya Thevar

Radhalakshmi, Vs v. Vignesh

Krishnamoorthy, Vs Secred Heart Church Musiri

The Branch Manager Vs Durai

Mohankumar Vs Jeyachandran

Rosammal, Vs Velappan Pillai