The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting an injunction suit. The court held that the individual tenant and the company running the business there could file suits on different causes of action, finding no abuse of process.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; 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 :01.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.R.P.(PD)No. 1193 of 2019
and
CMP.No.7637 of 2019
Mrs. Vijaya
... Petitioner
-vs-
Mr. T. Sowri Kannan
... Respondent
Prayer: Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.111 of 2019, in O.S.No.11 of 2019 dated 25.02.2019 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Sriperumbudur.
For Petitioner : Mr. M. Manivannan
For Respondent : Mr. A.D. Janarthanan
O R D E R
The above Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant
challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate in I.A.No.111 of 2019 in O.S.No.11 of 2019 which is a
2
Petition filed for rejecting the Plaint filed by the respondent on the grounds that
a) it does not disclose any cause of action.
b) It is barred by law and
c) an abuse of process of Court
The plaintiff in his individual capacity being an individual has filed the suit for bare injunction stating that the respondent is a landlady who is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore his possession has to be protected until it is over turned by a due process of law.
to be rejected is that since the Writ Petition has been moved the suit is barred by law. The affidavit does not disclose any ground under which
3
the suit is barred by law and what is the question of law that is affected by the filing of the present Suit. The Trial Court has rejected this Application, challenging the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.
the revision petitioner would contend that the Writ Petition has been filed by the Company whereas the present Plaint is filed by an individual which itself amounts to abuse of process of Court and therefore the suit deserves to be dismissed. The respondent/caveator refuted the arguments.
by the Company who is running its business therein and has been affected by the alleged illegal act of the landlord therefore there cannot be any question of there being an abuse. Therefore the first contention which though not raised in the affidavit filed in support of rejection does not have any legs to stand. As regards cause of action,
4
P.T. ASHA, J.,
mrn
a reading of Plaint would suffice for the Court to consider as to whether cause of action is made out. From a plain reading of the plaint which has been filed for permanent injunction, it is evident that the respondent/plaintiff has made out a cause of action for sustaining the suit. The second ground namely that filing of the Plaint is barred by the law has not been established by the revision petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
01.04.2019
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order
mrn
To,
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur.
C.R.P.(PD)No. 1193 of 2019
and
CMP.No.7637 of 2019
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the filing of a plaint by an individual tenant in his personal capacity constitutes an abuse of process of court when a company (operator in the same premises) filed a writ petition regarding
Whether the plaintiff has established a cause of action for a bare injunction for protection of peaceful possession.
Whether the plaint is barred by law by reason of the pendency of the company's writ petition.
Mrs. Vijaya
Mr. T. Sowri Kannan
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
