The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected a civil miscellaneous appeal filed against an order enforcing the removal of iron fencing. The Court found no infirmity in the lower court's order to dispose of the partition suit within six months.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal rejected. Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit within six months.
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.
C.M.A(MD)No.1658 of 2024
B E FOR E TH E MADURAI B E N CH OF MADRA S HIGH COURT
DAT ED : 1 1. 1 2. 2 0 2 4
CORAM
TH E HONOURABL E MR S. J U S TIC E R. KA LAIMATHI
C.M.A(MD)No.1 6 5 8 of 2 0 2 4
a nd
C.M.P(MD)No.1 7 7 7 1 of 2 0 2 4
K.Suba s hini ... Appellant/Plaintiff
-Vs-
1 .K.Siva m a ni 2.S.Murug an 3.K.N.K.Murug an S.Nadusu b bulu(Died) 4.K.Anand araj 5.R.Selvaku m ar 6.R.Jeyaku m ar 7.R.Kanniyan 8.K.Gurus a my 9.S.Rupa s hini 1 0 .S.Ven m urug a n 1 1 .N.Vijaya 1 2 .Raja m a ni 1 3 .Ranjitha 1 4.Sentrayan 1 5 .Oonjalai 1 6 .Anb ara s a n ... Resp o n d e nts/Defend a nts
_________ Page 1 of 5
C.M.A(MD)No.1658 of 2024
P RAY ER:
P RAY ER: This Civil Misc ellan e o u s Appe al is filed und er Section 1 0 4 r/w Ord er 4 3 Rule 1(r) of th e Cod e of th e Civil Proc e dur e, to s et a sid e th e ord er d at e d 2 6. 1 1. 2 0 2 4 p a s s e d in I.A.No.4 of 2 0 2 4 in O.S.No. 1 0 0 of 2 0 1 9 by th e le arn e d Addition al District Judg e, Periyakula m.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Math e w
J U D G M E N T
This Civil Misc ellan e o u s Appe al h a s b e e n pr ef err e d by th e s ol e plaintiff a g ainst th e ord er d at e d 2 6. 1 1 . 2 0 2 4 p a s s e d in I.A.No.4/24 in O.S.No. 1 0 0 of 2 0 1 9 by th e Addition al District Judg e, Periyakula m.
2.He ard th e le arn e d c o un s el a pp e aring for th e a pp ellant.
3.Originally, suit in O.S.No. 1 0 0 of 2 0 1 9 is filed by th e s ol e plaintiff h er ein b ef or e th e Addition al District Court, Periyakula m, a g ainst th e re sp o n d e nts/d ef e nd a nts for th e relief of p artition. Th e d ef e n d a nts in th e suit filed I.A.No.2 of 2 0 2 4 b ef or e th e trial Court to re m o v e th e Iron fen cing put up by th e plaintiff in th e suit prop erty(acr e s 6 .8 3 c e nts). Th e s aid I.A w a s allo w e d o n 1 5 . 0 3. 2 0 2 4, w h er ein th e plaintiff w a s ord er e d to re m o v e th e iron
_________ Page 2 of 5
C.M.A(MD)No.1658 of 2024
fen cing put up ar ound th e suit prop erty. Against th e s aid ord er, th e plaintiff pr ef err e d C.M.A b ef or e this Court in C.M.A.No.3 3 4 of 2 0 2 4 a n d th e s a m e w a s dis mis s e d by this Court o n 2 0. 0 8. 2 0 2 4.
4.Th er e after, th e p etition ers/d ef en d a nts filed a n a pplication to provid e p olic e prot e ction to th e m in ord er to re m o v e th e iron fen cing put up in th e suit prop erty. Th e re sp o n d e nts/d ef en d a nts c o nt e n d e d that a s th e plaintiff did n ot c h o s e to re m o v e th e iron fen cin g, th ey g a v e a c o m plaint to th e Sup erintend e nt of Polic e, Th e ni, o n 0 9. 0 9. 2 0 2 4. Th ou g h th e s aid c o m plaint w a s forw ard e d to th e Insp e ct or of Polic e, Palani, n o n e a ction w a s tak e n to impl e m e nt th e ord er of th e trial Court. Th er e is alr e a dy a n ord er w a s p a s s e d by th e trial Court to re m o v e th e iron fen cin g by th e plaintiff a n d th e s a m e w a s c o nfir m e d by this Court in C.M.A.No.3 3 4 of 2 0 2 4. So, in ord er to e nf orc e th e s aid ord er, a s th e re sp o n d e nts/d ef en d a nts s ou g ht for p olic e prot e ction to re m o v e th e iron fen cing put up ar ound th e suit prop erty it w a s ord er e d by th e trial Court.
_________ Page 3 of 5
C.M.A(MD)No.1658 of 2024
5.Ord er p a s s e d in I.A.No.2 of 2 0 2 4 re a c h e d finality. In ord er to e nf orc e th e s aid ord er in a pplication by th e d ef e n d a nts, p olic e prot e ction w a s ord er e d. In su c h circu m stan c e s, this Court d o e s n ot find a ny infirmity or p erv ersity in th e impu gn e d ord er.
6.Bas e d o n th e af or e s aid dis cu s sion, this Civil Misc ellan e o u s Appe al stand s rej e ct e d. Th er e is n o ord er a s to c o sts. As th e suit is of th e y e ar 2 0 1 9, th e trial Court is dir e ct e d to disp o s e of th e suit pr ef era bly within a p eriod of six m o nth s fro m th e d at e of re c eipt of a c o py of this ord er. Cons e q u e ntly, c o n n e ct e d mi s c ellan e o u s p etition is cl o s e d.
1 1 . 1 2. 2 0 2 4
NCC:Yes/No Ind ex:Yes/No Intern et::Yes/No To 1 .Th e Addition al District Judg e, Periyakula m.
_________ Page 4 of 5
C.M.A(MD)No.1658 of 2024
R. KALAIMATHI, J.
Ns
C.M.A(MD)No.1 6 5 8 of 2 0 2 4 a nd C.M.P(MD)No.1 7 7 7 1 of 2 0 2 4
1 1. 1 2. 2 0 2 4
_________ Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court finds any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order enforcing the removal of iron fencing?
What will be the timeline directive for the disposal of the underlying civil suit?
K.Subashini
Sivamani
R. Kalaimathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
