Interim injunction application in a property suit seeking to restrain interference with possession, prevent alienation, and direct tenants to deposit rentals was not pressed by counsel, who made an endorsement; the court recorded this and dismissed the application as not pressed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A. No. 2173 of 2010 in CS.No.386 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-12-2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN A.No.2173 of 2010
in CS.No.386 of 2010
NANDHINI RAVI AND 2 OTHERS
APPLICANT(S)
Vs
RAJA EDWIN AND 12 OTHERS
RESPONDENT(S)
For Applicant(s):
T.T. RAVICHANDRAN SK. RAHUL VIVEK P.B. ROHINI
For Respondent(s):
M/S.PAUL AND PAUL
ORDER
This application has been filed to
a) grant an order of interim injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 herein, their
men, agents, servants, or subordinates or any one acting under them from in any
manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property more
fully described in application filed along herewith pending disposal of the suit;
b) grant an order of interim injunction restraining respondents 1 and 2 herein, their
men, agents, servants, or subordinates or any one acting under them not to
A.A.NAKKIRAN.,J.
gv
them from the month of January 2010 with respect to the properties more fully
described in the application filed herewith into the account of the above suit.
gv 16-12-2024
To
A.No.2173 of 2010 in CS.No.386 of 2010
1 issue framed by the court
Should interim injunction and deposit of rentals be granted pending suit disposal?
NANDHINI RAVI AND 2 OTHERS
RAJA EDWIN AND 12 OTHERS
A.A.NAKKIRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
