The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an order refusing to strike off a plaint for permanent injunction. The court held that the petitioners failed to establish the grounds required under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to quash the suit.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
C.R.P.(PD) NO.275 OF 2015 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015
1.Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. Rep. By its Managing Director Royala Tower, No.158, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 2.T.K.Krishnamurthy 3.M.Nandagopal 4.Aravind Nandagopal ... Petitioners Vs. D.L.Sukumar S/o.T.Loganathan Rep. By his power agent A.Sampathraj ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 18.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.49 of 2014 in O.S.No.549 of 2012 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, sitting at Poonamallee Court.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kuberan for M/s.Rank Associates For Respondent : Mr.T.Muruganantham
2
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.49 of 2014 in O.S.No.549 of 2012 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2.The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.549 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Poonamallee. The respondent had instituted the suit against the petitioners seeking permanent injunction contending that he is the owner of the property and he is in possession of the same. Subsequently, the first petitioner herein had instituted the suit in O.S.No.99 of 2013 for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
3.It is represented that the respondent originally filed the suit in O.S.No.549 of 2012 before the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee and subsequently, it was transferred to the III Additional District Court to be tried along with O.S.No.99 of 2013.
4.The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.736 of 2013 in O.S.No.549 of 2012 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
strike off the plaint. The petitioners have contended that they are the owners of the property and they are in possession and the learned District Judge after
3
satisfying with their case granted interim injunction in O.S.No.99 of 2013 and that the suit filed for bare injunction is not maintainable since the petitioners have disputed the title of the respondent. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing a detailed counter affidavit. The learned Judge dismissed the application on 18.03.2014. Challenging the order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
5.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
6.Mr.V.Kuberan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the petitioners have instituted the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent. Though the respondent has claimed title over the suit property, but he has not filed suit for declaration of title. It is further submitted that after transfer of the suit from District Munsif Court to District Court, the respondent has to properly value the suit and pay the necessary court fee.
7.I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners. The respondent has filed the suit for bare injunction claiming to be the owner of the property. The only contention of the learned
4
counsel for the petitioners is that since the petitioners have already filed the suit for declaration and bare injunction, the suit filed by the respondent cannot be permitted to be proceeded with. The learned III Additional District Judge having rightly observed that the petitioners have not made out case to strike off
the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed the application. Hence, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition.
8.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.02.2015
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK
To
The III Additional District Judge Thiruvallur. Sitting at Poonamallee.
5
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
TK
C.R.P.(PD) NO.275 OF 2015
05.02.2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to strike off the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is sustainable in law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd.
D.L.Sukumar
K Kalyanasundaram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
