Maragathavalli v. Natarajan
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner sought an interim injunction. The court observed that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending due to excessive delay and closed the petition.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Twenty Fifth day of August Two Thousand Twenty PRESENT
THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
CMP No.6532 of 2019
in AS.NO.174 of 2019
MARAGATHAVALLI [ PETITIONER ]
Vs
1 NATARAJAN [ RESPONDENTS ]
2 MUTHURAJAN
3 NITHYANANDA REDDIAR
4 CHANDRA AMMAL
5 GURUMURTHI
(RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THIS
APPLICATION).
Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to pass an order interim injunction restraining the 5th respondent men or agents and any person claming under him from creating any encumbrance over the petition mentioned properties which are the subject matter of the suit in Os No.24/2016 on the file of the 2nd Additional District Judge Chidambaram(in CMP.No.6532/2019) till the disposal of the above AS.NO.174/2019.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES XEROX COPY ATTACHED
Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.R.GURURAJ, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.T.SARAVANAN Advocate for the 5th respondent the court made the following order:-
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
MARAGATHAVALLI
- respondent
1 NATARAJAN
- respondent
2 MUTHURAJAN
- respondent
3 NITHYANANDA REDDIAR
- respondent
4 CHANDRA AMMAL
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court