Civil Revision Petition challenging an order where the trial court directed an interim application for injunction on vehicle parking to be tried along with the main suit due to identical prayers, holding no infirmity.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs awarded.
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.
CRP.(PD).No.4589 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.02.2020
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
CRP.(PD).No.4589 of 2012
and
MP.No.1 of 2012
V.Shanmuga Sundar ... Petitioner
Versus
1.R.Arivalagan
2.A.Parthasarathy
3.J.Karthikeyan
4.Senthilmurugan
5.N.Nandakumar ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.11.2012 passed in I.A.No.18295 of 2011 in O.S.No.8435 of 2011 by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : Ms.M.Leena (for R2) : No Appearance – R1 & R5 : R3 & R4 – Dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2019 ORDER
The petitioner is called absent and heard the learned counsel for the second respondent.
1 of 3
CRP.(PD).No.4589 of 2012
relief of ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents or any other person claiming right under them from parking their vehicles in the open common space area from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. daily.
2011 for the very same relief. When the matter is posted for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has observed that the relief sought for in the I.A. and the suit being one and the same, the trial Court directed the I.A. to be called along with the main suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the present preferred the present C.R.P. As rightly contended by the second respondent, the prayer in the suit as well as the prayer in the I.A being one and the same and to that effect a finding was given in the I.A application, it will have a bearing in the suit. In the absence of prima-facie case being made out in favour of the petitioner, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.02.2020
Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking/Non-Speaking order klt
To
The XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2 of 3
CRP.(PD).No.4589 of 2012
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,
klt
CRP.(PD).No.4589 of 2012
and
MP.No.1 of 2012
12.02.2020
3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition against the trial court's order declining to call the interim application along with the suit should be allowed.
V. Shanmuga Sundar
R. Arivalagan
A. Parthasarathy
J. Karthikeyan
Senthilmurugan
N. Nandakumar
RMT. B. TEKKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
