Allowed

Manimaran v. C.Shaheena Kouser

Madras HC14 Dec 2022CRP/1800/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an interim application seeking to receive documents in a property suit. The High Court set aside the lower court order, directing the trial court to dispose of the suit within three months as the dismissal was unsustainable against separate applications filed by unconnected defendants.

What did the court decide?

The order under revision was set aside; the trial court directed to dispose of the suit within three months.

Manimaran Vs C.Shaheena Kouser — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

Manimaran

¶8

Mohideen Fatima

¶9

Splash Beauty Parlour, represented by Sreekala Shop No.104, Platinum Abode, New No.8, Old No.7 Nelson Manickam Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 094. .. Petitioners

¶10

Vs.

¶11

C.Shaheena Kouser

¶12

P.Naushath

¶13

C.M.Ahamed Kabeer

¶14

Syed Abdul Kader

¶15

M/s Pacific Builders (P) Ltd, Represented by its Director Basha, No.5, IDM Building, 1^st Floor, Moors Road, Chennai-600 006.

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015

¶19

M/s Greata Enterprises and Developers Pvt.Ltd., Director and Authorised Signatory, A.Sadaq Ismail, New No.53, Old No.28, Veerabadran Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶20

A.Jawahardeedn

¶21

Flat No.111, Platinum Abode, New No.8, Old No.7, Nelson Manickam Road, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 034.

¶22

Azeeza Umaitha No.Q-214, Kannadasan Street, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600 106.

¶23

.. Respondents

¶24

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 13.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.10955 of 2014 in O.S.No.4361 of 2006 by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶25

For Petitioners : Mr.L.Dhamodaran For Respondents R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Ramesh R4 : No appearance R6 : No appearance Notice served

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order dated 13.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.10955 of 2014 in O.S.No.4361 of 2006 by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition to receive the documents filed by the 9^th defendant.

¶31

The respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. After closing the evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendants 6 to 9 filed an application to receive the sale deed dated 23.09.2005 which was registered vide Document No.3983 of 2005. It was dismissed on the ground that already the 6^th defendant filed a proof affidavit and thereafter he died. Therefore, his proof affidavit was eschewed. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased 6^th defendant were not impleaded as parties in the suit.

¶32

There is no way connected with the defendants 6 to 9. They separately filed an application to receive the documents. Therefore, the reason stated by the Court below are not good enough to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners herein. That apart, no prejudice will be

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015

¶36

caused to the respondents, if the petitioners are allowed to file the documents.

¶37

Hence, the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 13.04.2015 passed in I.A.No.10955 of 2014 in O.S.No.4361 of 2006 by the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.4361 of 2006, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶39

14.12.2022

¶40

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mn

¶41

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶42

Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015

¶44

¶45

¶46

The VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶47

C.R.P.No.1800 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶48

14.12.2022

¶49

Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Manimaran v. C.Shaheena Kouser

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manimaran v. C.Shaheena Kouser

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

V.Vishnugopal Vs M.Perumal

K.Subramaniam Vs M/S.M.G.Enterprises

E.Khader Sherif Vs Munusamy

V.Paranthaman Vs M/S.Lazar Enterprises

J.Balachandran Vs J.Rajagopalan

Chinnathai,W/O.Arumugasamy Vs Arumugasamy,S/O.Gurusamy