Allowed

P.Muthusamy v. P.Kandasamy

Madras HC5 Apr 2017CRP(MD)/443/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-judge bench of the Madras High Court vacated an ex parte interim injunction passed by the Trial Court because it was granted without notice and remained in force beyond the mandatory 30-day limit under Order 39 Rule 3A CPC.

What did the court decide?

The ex parte interim order dated 24.01.2017 was vacated, and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the actionable application by 28.04.2017.

P.Muthusamy Vs P.Kandasamy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.04.2017

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.443 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.2168 of 2017

¶7

1)P.Muthusamy 2)P.Sellammal

¶8

3)M.Logambal

¶9

4)M.Sureshkumar

¶10

5)M.Vijayakumar 6)P.Meenakshi

¶11

7)S.Indumathi

¶12

... Petitioners

¶13

/Respondents/Defendants 1 to 7

¶14

vs.

¶15

1)P.Kandasamy

¶16

2)K.Banumathy 3)M.Thangavel 4)T.Geetha

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

/Petitioner/Plantiffs

¶19

Petition filed under Article 227 Constitution of India, against the ex parte order of interim injunction dated 24.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in O.S.No.7 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Karur.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The grievance of the revision petitioners is that despite filing of the caveat petition suppressing the said fact, the respondents herein have obtained ex parte interim injunction and therefore, counter was filed by the revision petitioners. But, however, the Trial Court has not taken up the matter even after lapse of 30 days.

¶23

2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that if there is any grievance of depriving the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners of giving notice, the Court may vacate the injunction granted ex parte, but however, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to hear the interlocutory application on merits within

¶24

¶25

the stipulated time and pass appropriate order.

¶26

3.Considering the submission made by the respective counsels,

¶27

this Court is of the opinion that since the ex parte order was passed without giving notice to the Caveators and also is in force for more than 30 days which is against the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A CPC, the impugned ex parte interim order dated 24.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in O.S.No.7 of 2017 by the Trial Court is hereby vacated with the direction to the Trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.44 of 2017 in O.S.No.7 of 2017 by 28.04.2017.

¶28

With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶31

/True copy/

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

¶34

The Principal District Judge, Karur.

¶35

1CC TO MR. VR. SHANMUGANATHAN, ADVOCATE SR: 50610 1CC TO MR. T.R. JEYAPALAM, ADVOCATE SR: 50452

¶36

nbi/rmk

¶37

AE/SKN RSK/SAR3/06.04 2017/2P/4C

¶38

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.443 of 2017

¶39

05.04.2017

¶40

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

P.Muthusamy v. P.Kandasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Muthusamy v. P.Kandasamy

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

Balaiya Vs Shanmuga Sundari

Kutti Ajith @ Ajith @ Vs Inspector of Police

P.Vivek Rao Vs the Inspector of Police

Natarajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Pushparaj, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Thavamuthu Vs the Inspector of Police