Dismissed

Vilvanathan v. v.Lalaitha

Madras HC2 Feb 2021CRP/1075/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a stay application under Section 10 CPC. The stay sought was against a respondent's suit for injunction. The Court held no irregularity existed as the respondent's suit involved a different property schedule and extent compared to the petitioners' earlier suit pending in second appeal.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed; no order as to costs.

Vilvanathan Vs v.Lalaitha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶7

and

¶8

MP.No.1 of 2014
1.Vilvanathan
2.Mukunthan ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.V.Lalaitha
2.Kasthuri
3.Valli
W/o D.Ravichandran
rep. by Power Agent
V.Sivachidambaram,
No.31, Rajaji Street, Cuddalore 606 003 ..Respondents

¶9

PRAYER:

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 28.01.2014 passed in IA.No.330 of 2013 in OS.No.124 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore.

¶11

1/6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶13

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.Sabarish, for Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan

¶15

For Respondents For R1 : Mr.R.Gururaj R2 & 3 : Notice served

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present Civil Revision Petition is arising out of fair and

¶18

final order dated 28.01.2014 passed in IA.No.330 of 2013 in OS.No.124 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore thereby dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners to stay all further proceedings in the suit filed by the respondent herein.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners already filed suit in OS.No.505 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, cuddalore for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Though the trial court decreed the suit, in the appeal reversed and the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred second appeal and it is pending in SA.No.818 of 2000 on the file of this Court. While being so, the respondents filed another suit for injunction in respect of the very same property. Therefore, the petitioners filed petition under Section 10 of CPC to stay all further proceedings of the suit till the disposal of the second appeal in SA.No.818 of 2000.

¶20

2/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that

¶24

after dismissal of the said petition, the plaintiffs side evidence was closed and the matter is posted for defendants side evidence. At that juncture, the petitioners also filed petition to receive additional written statement and it is pending. Therefore they very much proceeded with the trial before the trial court. Further he would submit that the suit property is completely different from the suit filed by the petitioners in OS.No.505 of 1992 and the suit filed by the respondents in OS.No.124 of 2010. The total extent also differs and as such the trial court rightly dismissed the petition

¶25

and proceeded with the trial. Now the trial is proceeded in OS.No.124 of 2010.

¶26

On perusal of the plaint schedule in both the suits in

¶27

OS.No.505 of 1992 and OS.No.124 of 2010, the schedule of the property is different one and extent also different. However, the petitioners are proceeding with the trial before the trial court. Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.

¶28

3/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶30

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶31

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶32

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to

¶33

costs.

¶34

02.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶36

4/6

¶37

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶38

¶39

The Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶41

5/6

¶42

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶43

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶44

lok

¶45

CRP.PD.No.1075 of 2014

¶46

02.02.2021

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶48

6/6

Vilvanathan v. v.Lalaitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilvanathan v. v.Lalaitha

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

Rajiv Vs M.Narayanan Nambiar (Died)

Avinaya Information Systems Vs Mukesh

Lakshmi Kuttiammal (Died) Vs K.Seshadri

K.Saravanan Vs Ulaganathan

R. Raghunath Vs a. Sampathraj

A. Rajendran Vs S. Mahalingam