Dismissed

R.Prabakaran v. The Executive Officer

Madras HC11 Dec 2023CRP(MD)/3185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil revision petition challenging the closure of an injunction application was dismissed. The High Court held that since the suit was ripe for trial, the trial judge correctly closed the pending injunction after over a year, but the petitioner retains liberty to file a fresh application if an auction attempt occurs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; petitioner at liberty to file fresh application for temporary injunction if warranted.

R.Prabakaran Vs The Executive Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.16412 of 2023

¶7

R.Prabakaran

¶8

... Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Singaperumal Thirukoil, A/m. Kailasanathar Thiru Kovil, Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam, Thanjavur.

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner, Arulmigu Singaperumal Thirukoil, A/m. Kailasanathar Thiru Kovil, Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam, Thanjavur.

¶12

Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam represented by tis Hereditary Trustee, having their office and place of business at Sardar Madi Palace, Thanjavur.

¶13

... Respondents/ Respondents/ Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

Prayer

¶17

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023

¶18

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in I.A.No.446 of 2022 in O.S.No.217 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thanjavur and set aside the docket order dated 20.07.2023.

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s.V.Sebastinal Preethi For R2 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.446 of 2022 in O.S.No.217 of 2022 dated 20.07.2023, closing the injunction application.

¶22

The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.217 of 2022 to declare that the revision petitioner/plaintiff and his family members alone are having fishery right over the suit tank and has filed an injunction application in I.A.No.446 of 2022, claiming temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants and their men from conducting auction of the tank.

¶23

It is seen from the records that issues were framed on 20.07.2023

¶24

and the learned trial Judge, by observing that issues were framed and the

¶25

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023

¶27

suit is ripe for trial, without prejudice to both parties, closed the application.

¶28

It is seen from B-Diary that the revision petitioner/plaintiff, at no point of time has pressed for enquiry and in some of the hearing, at the request of the parties, the case was adjourned.

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent would submit that pending suit, no auction was conducted.

¶30

Since the injunction application was pending for the past more than one year without any progress and taking note of the fact that the suit is ripe for trial, the learned trial Judge has rightly closed the application. But there is absolutely no bar or prohibition for the revision petitioner/ plaintiff to file another application for temporary injunction if the respondents/defendants makes any attempt to auction the tank.

¶31

Considering the above, the impugned order closing the application cannot be found fault with. Hence, this Court concludes that

¶32

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023

¶34

the revision is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

In the result this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However,

¶36

the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh application for temporary injunction, if the situation warrants. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶37

11.12.2023

¶38

NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm

¶39

¶40

The Principal District Munsif Court, Thanjavur.

¶41

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Arulmigu Singaperumal Thirukoil, A/m. Kailasanathar Thiru Kovil, Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam, Thanjavur.

¶42

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶43

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023

¶45

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023

¶47

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶48

csm

¶49

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.3185 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.16412 of 2023

¶50

Dated : 11.12.2023

¶51

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Prabakaran v. The Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prabakaran v. The Executive Officer

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

Rakku Vs Cinna Ponnu

T. Maheswaran Vs Raja (Died) 2.Manimekala

The Tahsildar, Vs Incorporated and Unicorporated Devaswoms

K.Vellaichamy(Died) Vs M.Murugan

Ponnar Vs Nadukattaiyan Alias Periyasamy

Rajapandi @ Rajapandy Vs Gopinath