Dismissed

M. Ponnusamy v. R.V. Rajee

Madras HC29 Nov 2021CRP/1385/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a docket order. The order, passed by the Trial Court, directed a respondent to maintain status quo regarding suit properties due to the petitioner's alleged attempts to alienate them and contemptuous conduct via false allegations against the judiciary during the pandemic. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's exercise of

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; connected civil miscellaneous petition closed.

M. Ponnusamy Vs R.V. Rajee — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29 / 11 / 2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020 AND CMP NO.8062 OF 2020

M.Ponnusamy

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.R.V.Rajee 2.P.Revathi 3.A.Muthusamy 4.C.Muthukumar ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and docket order dated 08.07.2020 made in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.149 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Guruprasad For Respondent-1 : Mr.S.Karthikeibalan

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Docket Order dated 08.07.2020 made in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.149 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. The said order reads as under:

¶18

" IA6/2020counsel of the petitioner appeared

¶19

through Video conference. No rep for the respondents. This court received an E-mail from the 1st respondent on 07.07.2020, with false and baseless allegation with an intention to prevent this court from proceeding further. This is a intential threat to the judicial institution.which is functioning doing this pandamic situation. so as to prevent the court from discharging its duties. The act of the respondent No.1 insend such a threat is sevierly and seriously condemnable contemptuoch .Hence this court ordered issue of showcause notice to the concerned respondent to why no legal action should be initiated against him. Taking in view of conduct

¶20

2/8

¶21

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

¶22

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶23

of the respondents, this court direct the respondent to maintain statusquo inrespect of the suit schedule properties untill further orders and till this case sets transferred to another court and till then application decided by another judge. Memo filed by the 4th respondent by email on 07.07.2020 is also recorded. The main case and all connected applications shall be posted after two months to enable the respondents to set this case transferred to some other court as intended by them. c/o 09.09.2020. IA5/2020Spl list, Argument of R3, R4, Refer to notes paper in IA6/2020in view of the e mail receiced from the 4th respt on 7.7.2020 the petition stands adjourned by 9.9.2020 IA312/14 Spllist Enquiry call on 9.9.2020 OS 149/2014-Spl list. IA312/14, IA 5/20 and IA 6/20 are pending. Appropriate orders passed in IA 6/20. Adj to 09.09.2020." (sic.)

¶24

2.I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused

¶25

the materials produced before this Court.

¶26

3/8

¶27

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

¶28

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶29

3.It is noted that an interlocutory application in I.A.No.312 of

¶30

2014 was filed for temporary injunction on 05.10.2015 and the same is pending till date. In the meanwhile, it appears that the first defendant / first respondent / revision petitioner had executed a Power of Attorney in respect of the Suit property in favour of one Kalaiselvi on 25.02.2020 and cancelled the same on 13.03.2020. Again on 13.03.2020, executed a power of attorney in favour of one Muthukumar and cancelled the same on 29.06.2020. Again on 29.06.2020, executed a Settlement Deed in favour of one Nivetha Sree who is none other than his daughter. These events were highlighted by way of a Memo filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff sought for early hearing. An interlocutory application in I.A.No.5 of 2020 was filed restraining the defendants in the Suit not to alter the physical features of the Suit property and I.A.No.6 of 2020 was filed not to alienate the property. It was submitted that the defendants are attempting to prepare a lay out and alienate the property. Considering the same, the Trial Court expedited the hearing in I.A.No.5 of 2020 and I.A.No.6 of 2020. The order of proceedings goes to show that the respondents 1 and 2 were heard in this matter and it was posted

¶31

4/8

¶32

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

¶33

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶34

for arguments of defendants 3 and 4 on various dates and finally on 08.07.2020. At this juncture, an e-mail was forwarded to the concerned Judicial Officer making various allegations more particularly that the Judicial Officer had openly stated that he is going to pass adverse order against the respondents and the Judicial Officer was influenced by the petitioner and his counsel through political and powerful persons.

¶35

4.Considering the interference caused by the litigant in the judicial administration, a suo - motu contempt was initiated and a show cause notice was also issued. It is also noted that from the reports submitted by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore that the respondents have not filed any reply but sent an e-mail seeking extension of time after the official hours.

¶36

5.It is not that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner nothing was addressed to the concerned Judicial Officer namely, the III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, but it was sent only to the learned Principal District Judge. On the other hand, the attachments to the

¶37

5/8

¶38

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

¶39

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶40

e-mail dated 07.07.2020 clearly shows all these complaints and allegations were forwarded to the III Additional District Judge also. The learned Judge has considered the factum that the first defendant is actively going out, registering and cancelling the power of attorney as well settlement deed and seeking adjournment that he is keeping home on the pretext that his house is situated in a containment area may not be true.

¶41

6.This Court is also of the considered opinion that when a person who is free to move during the pandemic period should also attend the Court hearings and co-operate in the judicial proceedings. On the one hand, he says that he is old aged and on the other hand, he deals with the property during the pendency of the Suit. When the Court passes judicial orders, he sends complaints to the learned Principal District Judge, the Head of the Unit and forwarded a copy of the e-mail to the concerned Judicial Officer also, which prompted the learned Judge to take action as contemplated in the statute.

¶42

6/8

¶43

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

¶44

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶45

I do not find anything wrong in the action taken by the learned

¶46

III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. I do not also find that the interim oder of status-quo was granted only on the basis of the conduct of the revision petitioner, but it was passed on merits after considering the developments that had happened in respect of the Suit property during the pendency of the Suit. The learned Judge after finding the prima facie case and the contention of the parties had only granted a preventive order using his discretion. It is not purely on the basis of the conduct of the respondents but on the aspects of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable damage that may be caused to one of the parties to the Suit. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the docket order dated 08.07.2020 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2020 in O.S.No.149 of 2014 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition merits no consideration and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

29 / 11 / 2021

7/8

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

¶51

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶52

M. GOVINDARAJ, J.

¶53

¶54

¶55

The III Additional District Judge III Additional District Court Coimbatore.

¶56

CRP (PD) NO.1385 OF 2020

¶57

29 / 11 / 2021

¶58

8/8

¶59

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

M. Ponnusamy v. R.V. Rajee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Ponnusamy v. R.V. Rajee

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

J. Anand Vs B. Jayachandran

Pushpa Kumar Vs Siddharathan

Mrs.J.Dhanalakshmi, Vs Mr.v.Muralidharan

Peter Vs Govindammal

C. Ramasamy Gounder (Deceased) Vs E. Geetha

Mr. S. Karunakaran Vs All India Sai Samaj