The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging orders on an interim injunction. Instead of deciding on merits due to delay, the court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months.
Trial court directed to dispose of the suit within three months of receipt of the order.
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: 10.07.2019
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.R.P.(PD) No.2925 of 2014 &
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Balakrichnan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Sathiyamoorthy
2.Punniyamoorthi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 11.01.2013 made in C.M.A. No.1 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, confirming the Fair and Decreetal order dated 16.11.2011 made in I.A.No.760 of 2011 in O.S.No.288 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Perambalur.
For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Balasubramanian
For Respondents ... No appearance
ORDER
The instant civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
2
Perambalur in C.M.A.No.1 of 2012 modifying the fair and decreetal order 16.11.2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Perambalur in I.A.No.760 of 2011 in O.S.No.288 of 2011.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the revision:
3
3. Heard Mr.R.Balasubramanian learned counsel for the
petitioner. There is no representation on the side of the respondent,
even though the name of the counsel mentioned in the cause list today.
Discussion:
4 . Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained injunction pending disposal of the suit in respect of two items of the property mentioned in the suit schedule property which comprises of three items. This being the case, aggrieved by non-granting of injunction in respect of third item, the petitioner has preferred this revision in the year 2014 and the suit is still kept pending because of the pendency of this revision.
will be served, if an order is passed on merits in this revision at this stage. In the interest of the petitioner as well as the respondents, it is better to direct the trial court to dispose of the suit within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4
Conclusion:
dispose of the suit O.S.No.288 of 2011 within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order uninfluenced by any observation made by the trial court in I.A.No.760 of 2011 or by the lower Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.1 of 2012. With the aforesaid direction, the
civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.07.2019 nl
Index : Yes / No Speaking/Non-Speaking orders
To
5
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J,
nl
CRP (PD) No.2925 of 2014
10.07.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to dispose of a civil revision petition granted against an interim injunction order and direct the trial court to conclude the suit pending on pendency of the revision.
Whether the trial court can be directed to dispose of a suit within a fixed time frame to avoid further delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Balakrichnan
Sathiyamoorthy
Punniyamoorthi
Abdul Qudhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
