Disposed

Udaiyarkudi Periyapallivasal v. Haja Sherif

Madras HC13 Nov 2024AS/937/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a first appeal against a decree in a bare injunction suit regarding property injunctions must be filed before the District Court, not directly in this High Court. The filing was stricken off, and records were transmitted to the District Court for appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit was struck off from the registry and the appeal memorandum was to be presented before the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

Udaiyarkudi Periyapallivasal Vs Haja Sherif — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.S.No.937 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 13.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

Appeal Suit. No.937 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25037 of 2024

¶7

Udaiyarkudi Periyapallivasal Rep. by Managing Trustee, Udaiyar Kudi, Kattumannar Koil, Cuddalore District.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Haja Sherif

¶11

Dhasthakir @ John Basha

¶12

Mohammadhu

¶13

Askar Ali

¶14

Abdul Rasheedh

¶15

HarifullaKhan

¶16

Pugazhanthi ... Respondents

¶17

First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 passed by the Sub Court, Chidambaram.

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.K.J.Shiva Arudhra For Respondents : No Appearance

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This First Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree

¶21

dated 31.08.2021 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 passed by the Sub Court,

¶22

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

1/4

A.S.No.937 of 2024

Chidambaram.

The Registry without going through the fact that the order which is impugned in this Appeal has been passed by the Sub Judge has erroneously numbered this Appeal. When the Appeal came up for hearing it was found that the Appeal against judgment and decree in O.S.No. 45 of 2013 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram has to be filed only before the District Court concerned. Here in this case, the Appellant had come directly to the High Court without agitating their right before District Court concerned. Therefore, this Court directs the Registry to reject the Appeal memorandum to the learned Counsel for the Appellant with a direction to present the Appeal before the District Court concerned.

¶27

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Appellant furnished copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.6336 of 2021, dated 28.10.2021 stating that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and it has to be decided by the Wakf Tribunal.

¶28

On perusal of the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it is found that only in cases of dispute between the parties that whether the property is wakf property or not, the Wakf Tribunal has jurisdiction. Regarding the maintenance of suit for bare injunction the Civil https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/4

¶30

A.S.No.937 of 2024

¶31

Court has jurisdiction. Since the subject matter of the dispute is regarding permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendants to put

¶32

up constructions, the appeal arises out of suit for bare injunction. Therefore, the Appeal is to be preferred before the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

¶33

In the light of the above, the Registry is directed to transmit the entire case records in relation to this Appeal to the Court of Appeals concerned. The learned Counsel for the Appellant is also directed to present the present Appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned for getting appropriate orders. The Appellate Court is directed to entertain the Appeal as and when it is represented by the learned Counsel for the Appellant without taking note of the delay in filing the Appeal as the matter was pending before the High Court. Therefore, it should be considered favourably to the Appellant.

¶34

In the result, this Appeal Suit is struck off from the Registry. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶35

13.11.2024

¶36

srm

¶37

Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶38

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

¶39

3/4

¶40

A.S.No.937 of 2024

¶41

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.,

¶42

srm

¶43

¶44

The Sub Court, Chidambaram.

¶45

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶46

The Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.

¶47

A.S.No.937 of 2024

¶48

and C.M.P.No.25037 of 2024

¶49

Copy to:

¶50

The Sub Assistant Registrar, A.E. Section, High Court, Madras – 600 104.

¶51

The Section Officer, E.R. Section, High Court, Madras – 600 104.

¶52

13.11.2024

¶53

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

¶54

4/4

Udaiyarkudi Periyapallivasal v. Haja Sherif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udaiyarkudi Periyapallivasal v. Haja Sherif

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

Chandrasekaran Vs Kanagaraj

Pichai Vs Ponnaiyan

T.Rajan Vs R.Arunagiri

K.S.Gunasekar Vs K.S.Gnanavel

P. Amsaveni Vs P.Paulraj

Geetha Vs Bale Pandian