Allowed

Rajendran v. Govindammal

Madras HC13 Feb 2017CRP/4525/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a civil revision petition challenging the order of the District Munsif Court which had allowed an interim application to remove a suit for injunction from the list. The High Court held that possession must be proved and pendency of a writ petition is insufficient to adjourn the suit.

What did the court decide?

The order and decree in I.A.No.1337 of 2011 dated 21.12.2011 were set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit within three months.

Rajendran Vs Govindammal — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

CRP(PD)No.4525 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012
Rajendrna .. Petitioner
Vs
1.Govindammal
2.K.Saroja
3.Ravichandran
4.Asokan
5.The District Collector,
Salem District.
6.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Attur.
7.The Tahsildar,
Attur. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

¶7

Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 21.12.2011 in I.A.No.1337 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif Court, Attur.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Sathya Bama

¶11

For Respondents : No Appearance

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Fair and Decreetal Order made in I.A.No.1337 of 2011 in O.S.No.170 of 2005 dated 21.12.2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Aattur.

¶14

2.The revision petitioner is the 1^st defendant in O.S.No.170 of 2005 which was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein/plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from disturbing their possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Pending suit the plaintiffs have filed an application in I.A. No: 1337 of 2011 under section 151 of CPC, to remove the suit from the list and adjourn the case for ordinary trial.

¶15

respondents/defendants, contenting that in the writ petition filed by plaintiffs before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.5665 of 2008,

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

challenging the order of the R.D.O. cancelling the Patta, no interim order was granted. Further in the said writ petition the plaintiffs have not stated anything about the present suit. Hence they prayed to dismiss the said application.

¶19

4.Considering the case on either side the trial Court has allowed

¶20

the I.A.No.1337 of 2001 by order dated 21.12.2011, against which the

¶21

present civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/1^st

¶22

defendant.

¶23

5.I have heard Ms.A.Sathya Bama, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the entire materials available on record. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶24

6.It is a suit for bare injunction filed by respondents 1 and 2

¶25

herein against the revision petitioner and others. In a suit for injunction possession alone has to be proved by the plaintiffs.

¶26

7.It is the contention of the respondents 1 and 2 herein that as against the order cancelling the Patta in the name of plaintiffs by the

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

R.D.O., Aattur, the plaintiffs filed writ petition before this Hon’ble Court and the same is pending. On that score the plaintiffs wanted to stay of their suit by removing the suit which was posted in the list and to adjourn the same for ordinary trial. The trial Court has simply accepted the case of the plaintiffs and allowed the said Interim Application. In my consider opinion the said approach of the Trial Court is not proper and the same is liable to be set aside for the reason that the plaintiffs have to establish their possession over the suit property by adducing oral documentary evidence and they cannot sought to stay of the suit merely because of the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition.

¶30

8.In view of the above I am of the considered opinion that the

¶31

trial Court has committed an error in allowing application filed by the plaintiffs and the same is liable to be set aside, accordingly it is set aside.

¶32

9.In the result:

¶33

(a) this civil revision petition is allowed by setting

¶34

aside the order and decree made in I.A.No.1337 of 2011 in O.S.No.170 of 2005 dated 21.12.2011 on the

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

5 file of the learned District Munsif Court, Aattur;

¶37

(b)the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit

¶38

within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.02.2017
vs
Note:Issue order copy on 04.02.2019
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
The District Munsif Court, Attur.

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

¶41

M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.

¶42

vs
CRP(PD)No.4525 of 2012
and
M.P.No.1 of 2012

¶43

13.02.2017

¶44

http://www.judis.nic.in

Rajendran v. Govindammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. Govindammal

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

R.Lakshmi Prabha Vs K.Venkatachala Murthy

S.Nagaraj Chettiar Vs Special Tahsildhar

Sundaram Mudaliyar Vs Balakrishnan

R.Duraisamy Vs G.Karthick

Rangammal Vs Nanjammal

N.Thirupathi Vs T.G.Prabhakara