Allowed

S.Natchimuthu v. K.Kandasamy Gounder (Died)

Madras HC25 Feb 2021CMP(MD)/7290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the interim stay petition, making a previous stay absolute. The court held that since the contestable decreewas a mandatory injunction for removal of fencing, lifting the stay would render the pending appeal infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Stay on a mandatory injunction decree (removal of fencing) is made absolute pending the outcome of the appeal.

S.Natchimuthu Vs K.Kandasamy Gounder (Died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.7290 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CMP(MD) No.7290 of 2020 IN SA(MD) No.710 of 2020

¶7

1 S.NATCHIMUTHU

¶8

2 N.MURUGESAN 3 K.ILAYAMMAL 4 K.RAMALINGAM ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶9

K.KANDASAMY GOUNDER (DIED)

¶10

1 K.NATCHIMUTHU

¶11

2 R.SELLAMMAL ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to pass an order of INTERIM STAY of operation of the judgement and decree dated 02.11.2020 passed in A.S.No. 36 of 2016 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Karur confirming the judgement and decree dated 06.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.409 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Karur.

¶13

PRAYER IN SA(MD)No.710/2020:

¶14

To set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2020 passed in A.S.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Karur confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 06.06.2016 passed in O.S.No.409 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, karur by allowing this Second Appeal.

¶15

ORDER :This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.D.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM for Mr.R.NIRESH KUMAR, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr.K.SURESH, Advocate for the Respondents, the Court made the following order:-

¶16

Heard Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/2

¶18

CMP(MD) No.7290 of 2020

¶19

2.Decree is one for mandatory injunction, directing removal of the fencing put up in the portion of the alleged cart track. If the stay is vacated, there is possibility of the appeal itself becoming infructuous. Hence, the stay granted on 05.01.2021 is made absolute. The Civil Miscellaenous Petition is allowed.

¶20

sd/25/02/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶21

¶22

1.THE ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KARUR

¶23

2.THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, KARUR

¶24

ORDER

¶25

IN CMP(MD) No.7290 of 2020 IN SA(MD) No.710 of 2020 Date :25/02/2021

¶26

vrn

¶27

AE/JC/SAR-I (04/03/2021) 2P / 3C

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

2/2

S.Natchimuthu v. K.Kandasamy Gounder (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Natchimuthu v. K.Kandasamy Gounder (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H.Syed Mathani Vs N.M.Shahul Hameed

M.Vinitha Priya Vs v.Karthick

Vigneswari Vs D.Deepak Kumar

P.Sivakumar Vs S.Beula

Divisional Railway Manager/ Vs S.Vijayaraghavan

Mohamed Mohideen Vs M/S. Bharath Heavy