Allowed

The Executive Officer, v. T. Ramalingam

Madras HC9 Feb 2015CRP(MD)/2735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the High Court ordered the transfer of the underlying suit from the Additional Subordinate Court to the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, for disposal by a specified date. The existing status quo regarding suit property possession was maintained pending the suit's conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of suit from Additional Sub-Court to Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, disposal by 31.03.2015; status quo continued.

The Executive Officer, Vs T. Ramalingam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2015

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

C.R.P.(MD).NO.2735 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2014

¶7

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Nageswaran Temple, Kumbakonam.

¶8

..Revision Petitioner/1^st Defendant

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.T.Ramalingam

¶11

..1^st Respondent/Plaintiff

¶12

2.The Assistant Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Nageswaran North Street, Kumbakonam.

¶13

3.The Joint Commissioner,

¶14

H.R & C.E., Pattamangala Street, Mayiladuthurai. ..2

¶15

..2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/2^nd & 3^rd Dedendants

¶16

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 19.11.2014 made in C.M.A.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur reversing the order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in O.S.No.206 of 2012 dated 24.06.2014 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manohar For R1 : Mr.G.Gomathi Shankar For R2 and R3 : No appearance

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

By consent of both sides, the civil revision petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶20

2.This revision is directed against the order of interim injunction from restraining the respondents in any way interfering or intermeddling with the suit property, which is in possession of the plaintiff.

¶21

3.The trial Court granted interim injunction till the disposal of the suit, which was challenged in C.M.A.No.26 of 2014 before the II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur. The Appellate Court also confirmed the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant, which is the temple in Kumbakonam has come forward with this revision.

¶22

4.The suit is of the year 2012, which is filed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from in any way interfering or intermeddling with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property by the plaintiff.

¶23

¶24

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of

¶25

the mahamagam, which is said to be celebrated this month and he wants only convenient passage to enter and exit using the suit property. But the respondent's counsel was not agreeable and opposed the same.

¶26

However, I am not discussing about the merits of the case now and

¶27

I am not giving any findings or directions regarding the same. Both the counsels agreed for an early disposal of the suit.

¶28

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that there is no presiding officer in the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam. Therefore, the suit may be transferred to the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam.

¶29

8.In view of the above request, the suit is to be transferred from the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam to the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.206 of 2012, on or before 31.03.2015. Status quo as on date is to continue till the disposal of the suit.

¶30

With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶33

/True copy/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

1.The II Additional District Judge, Thanjavur.

¶37

2.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. 3.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate in SR.5824

¶39

+1cc to Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar, Advocate in SR.5961

¶40

C.R.P.(MD).No.2735 of 2014

¶41

09.02.2015

¶42

¶43

pbk 16/02/2015 ::2p-6c:

¶44

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

The Executive Officer, v. T. Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Officer, v. T. Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Swaminathan, Vs Muthukaruppan

K.Selvin Sundara Nayakamani, Vs Y.Jeyapaul

Nagarani, Vs K.Nanthakumar

R.S.Sumathi Vs Sri Saraswathi Finance Co.

Murugesan Vs M/S. Asian Traders

Ramachandra Textile Vs Sri Masammal