Disposed

C. Rathinakumar v. P. Rani

Madras HC13 Mar 2014CRP(MD)/315/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court revision petition challenging an interim injunction order was disposed of. The Court accepted the revision petitioner's submission that there was no blocking of access and directed the lower court to allow the connected civil appeal as prayed.

What did the court decide?

The IA No. 26 of 2013 is struck off; the subordinate judge directed to allow the connected C.M.A. as per the prayer in IA No. 172 of 2013.

C. Rathinakumar Vs P. Rani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.03.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)(NPD)No.315 of 2014 & M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

C.Rathinakumar

¶8

...Petitioner/1^st Respondent/ 1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

P.Rani

¶11

...Respondent/Petitioner/ Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to the I.A.No.26 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palani camp at Kodaikanal and struck off from file as not maintainable.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.J.Lawrance

¶14

For Respondent :Mr.K.M.Senthil Vinayagam

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The revision petitioner is the respondent in I.A.No.26 of 2013 whereas, the respondent herein is the petitioner therein. It appears from the records that the respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.122 of 2013 as against the revision petitioner herein and the District Collector, Dindigul, seeking the relief of direction to the first defendant not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and to pass a decree for mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to remove the unlawful structure put up by him in the suit property failing which to permit the respondent/plaintiff to remove the unlawful structure with due process of the Court.

¶17

Along with the said suit, the respondent has also filed an application in I.A.No.172 of 2013 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order for add-interim injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from in any way blocking the access of the plaintiff to the suit property. That petition was dismissed, against which the respondent/plaintiff has preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Palani camp at Kodaikanal.

¶18

During the pendency of the C.M.A, the respondent has taken out the above said application in I.A.No.26 of 2013. The above said I.A.No.26 of 2013 is filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 151 Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the relief of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent and his agent, representative, men, subordinate from in any manner continuing, altering, deviating, completing, finishing and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for any further construction and in that application an order of interim injunction was granted on 11.12.2013.

¶19

¶20

Having been aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner, being the first defendant, approached this Court after invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India to struck off I.A.No.26 of 2013 which has been filed before the lower appellate Court during the pendency of the C.M.A.No.10 of 2013.

¶21

When the revision came up for hearing yesterday i.e., on 12.03.2014, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had no objection in allowing the C.M.A.No.10 of 2013 as he had not blocked the access of the petitioner to reach the suit property and he has also submitted a Memorandum saying that the respondent being the plaintiff has two gates to enter and exit his property from Batlagundu-Thandikudi road. The construction of the public toilet by Manaloor Panchayat is not blocking the said gates to the respondents/plaintiffs properties. Hence, the petitioner herein has no objection for granting of the relief as sought for in I.A.No.172 of 2013 in O.S.No.122 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif -cumJudicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, and therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani camp at Kodaikanal may be disposed of.

¶22

Even today also, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has got no objection in allowing the C.M.A.No.10 of 2013 as per the prayer sought for in I.A.No.172 of 2013.

¶23

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has also conceded for the same.

¶24

Accordingly, the Memorandum submitted by the petitioner is recorded and this revision petition is disposed of under the following terms:-

¶25

Since the revision petitioner has no objection to allow the petition in I.A.No.172 of 2013 in O.S.No.122 of 2013, the petition in I.A.No.26 of 2013 is struck off and the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani camp at Kodaikanal, is hereby directed to take up the C.M.A.No. 10 of 2013 and allow the same as per the prayer sought for in I.A.No.172 of 2013 soon after the receipt of the order of this Court. Consequently,the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

Gsr Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar[P&A]

¶28

/True copy/

¶29

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

The Subordinate Judge, Palani camp at Kodaikanal. +1 cc to Mr.K.M.Senthil Vinyagam, Advocate SR.no.15662. +1 cc to Mr.J.Lawrance, Advocate SR.No.16197.

¶32

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.315 of 2014 DATED:13.03.2014

¶33

2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RPB 21.04.2014

C. Rathinakumar v. P. Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Rathinakumar v. P. Rani

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

Karuppasamy Vs K.S. Eswaran

T.Sukumar Vs Indulakshmi

R.Sivakami, W/O.N.Kumarasamy Vs M.Veerakannan

C.Arumugasamy Vs R.Velmurugan

Periyakal Vs Periyasamy Gounder

Suresh Babu Vs D.Venkatasubramanian