Allowed

Chandran, v. a.R.Angusamy

Madras HC22 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/901/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court directed the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of an application for ad-interim injunction within two weeks after a copy of the order is received.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of I.A.No.202 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 within two weeks of receiving the order copy.

Chandran, Vs a.R.Angusamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.04.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.901 of 2014

1.Chandran

2.Krishnakumar

3.Thirupathi

.. Petitioners/Petitioners/ Plaintiffs

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.A.R.Angusamy 2.A.Thirupathy 3.A.R.Loganathan 4.A.R.Balakrishnan

¶13

.. Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of I.A.No.202 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh ORDER

¶16

Seeking a direction to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of I.A.No.202 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 within a steel framed time, which may be fixed by this Court, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2013, after invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

The respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. It appears from the records that the revision petitioners being the plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.206 of 2013 as against the respondents herein seeking the relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, they have also filed an application in I.A.No.202 of 2013 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking the relief of ad-interim injunction. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents herein have filed their counter affidavit in the said Interlocutory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Application. However, the said application without any progress has been kept pending idle. Therefore, the revision petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking a direction to dispose

¶18

¶19

of I.A.No.202 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013, as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a time frame.

¶20

Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has submitted that since there is imminent danger to the suit property, interim injunction is very much essential preventing the respondents from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the revision petition be allowed with a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai, to dispose of I.A.No.202 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013.

¶21

Having been given careful consideration, this Court finds that in the interest of Justice, it may be expedient to issue a direction to the trial Court, as requested by the revision petitioner.

¶22

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is hereby directed to dispose of I.A.No.202 of 2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

¶28

+One cc to Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, Advocate, SR.No.24307 smn2 RL/3 c- 7/5/2014

¶29

22.04.2014

¶30

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

Chandran, v. a.R.Angusamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran, v. a.R.Angusamy

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

K.Ramesh Vs v.Latha

Subbaiah, S/O. Muthukonar, Vs Nagarajan

Majibha Banu, Vs the Union of India, Rep. by

K.Jawahar (M/64), Vs a.Periyapalanichamy

Rajan Vs Retna Raj

R.Sankaranarayanan, Vs S.Janaki