Allowed

R.Lingan v. M.Manonmani

Madras HC11 Dec 2020CRP/1741/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging the District Munsif Court's order permitting an amendment from a permanent injunction suit to a mandatory injunction suit. The Court held that mandatory injunction cannot be prayed for without a title declaration and set aside the lower court order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing amendment was set aside; the trial court directed to dispose of the suit on merits within three months.

R.Lingan Vs M.Manonmani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP(NPD)No.1741 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 08.12.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN

¶6

CRP(NPD)No.1741 of 2017
CMP.No.8227 of 2017
(Through Video Conferencing)
R.Lingan Petitioner
Vs
1. M.Manonmani

¶7

The Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municipality The Nilgiris Respondent

¶8

Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, under Section 227 of the

¶9

Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 02.03.2017, made in IA.No.26 of 2017 in OS.No.226 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ravi Shankar Rao

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.P.Srinivas

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 02.03.2017, made in IA.No.26 of 2017 in OS.No.226 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.

¶14

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Civil Revision

¶15

1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

CRP(NPD)No.1741 of 2017

¶17

Petition are as follows:-

¶18

(a) The 1st Defendant in OS.No.226 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, is the Petitioner herein and the 1st Respondent herein is the Plaintiff. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from resting his beam into the already existing beam of the Plaintiff and from putting up any unauthorised construction in the suit property. The Plaintiff has filed IA.No.26 of 2017 to amend the plaint, which was originally filed for permanent injunction, into one for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. By the impugned order, the IA was allowed. As against the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1st Defendant.

¶19

This court heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

The learned counsel for the Petitioner/ 1st Defendant has submitted that the amendment sought for by the Plaintiff would change the original cause of action and the character of the suit and that there was no reason assigned by the Plaintiff for the delay of more than seven year in filing the petition to amend the plaint and that only with a view to protract the proceedings, amendment was sought after long period, that too after dismissal of CRP.No.607 of 2017 filed by the 1st Defendant, which was disposed of by this Court, by order dated, 11.11.2016, directing the suit to be disposed of on or before 31.3.2017 and hence, this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed.

¶21

2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

CRP(NPD)No.1741 of 2017

¶23

The learned counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff has submitted that since the 1st Defendant has put up unauthorised constructions, plaint is necessarily to be amended into one for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction and that if the amendment is not allowed, he would be put to irreparable hardship and loss and hence, Civil Revision Petition is to be dismissed.

¶24

This Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also carefully perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Originally, the suit was filed for permanent injunction in 2008 and the amendment was sought for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in 2017. In this case, without the prayer for declaration of title, the question of granting mandatory injunction does not arise and that in a simple suit for permanent injunction, there cannot be a prayer for mandatory injunction. On these simple propositions, the impugned order, allowing mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, cannot be sustained and accordingly, it is liable to set aside.

¶26

The suit is in the stage of trial. In CRP.PD.No.607 of 2016 filed by the 1st Defendant, by order dated, 10.11.2016, this Court had already directed for early disposal of the suit on or before 31.03.2017 and hence, suitable direction may be given for early disposal of the suit.

¶27

A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.

¶28

3/4

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

CRP(NPD)No.1741 of 2017

¶31

Srcm

¶32

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected MP is closed. The impugned order, dated 02.03.2017, made in
IA.No.26 of 2017 in OS.No.226 of 2008, by the District Munsif Court,
Udhagamandalam is set aside. There shall be a direction to the Trial Court
to dispose of the suit, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11.12.2020
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Srcm
To
1. The District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam
Pre-Delivery Order in
CRP(PD)No.1741 of 2017

¶33

4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Lingan v. M.Manonmani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Lingan v. M.Manonmani

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

Balabadrinarayanagupta Vs S.Ramasubramanian

Palanisamy Vs Nallammal

Srikanth Vs Gomathi

Selvaraj, Vs Stephenraj

Velmurugan Stores Vs Singaraj

K. Illayaraja Vs Tmt. R. Thamizharasi