Disposed¶28

The Madras Collectorate Colony, v. Collectorate Colony

Madras HC9 Jul 2025CRP/2089/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; Civil Revision Petition; exparte/experte interim stay; vacate exparte order of injunction; efficacious and effective remedy; First Appellate Court; CMA. No.17 of 2025; I.A. No.2 of 2025; Principal City Civil Court Chennai; XXII Additional City Civil Court; status quo; temple renovation/construction; locus standi of residents welfare association; undertaking not to claim equity; no costs; Madras High Court; P.B. Balaji.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with liberty to the revision petitioner to approach the 22nd Additional Court to vacate the exparte order of injunction; counter to be filed within one week and the stay application to be decided within two weeks thereafter on merits and in accordance with law; status quo as on date to prevail; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

The Madras Collectorate Colony, Vs Collectorate Colony — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution when the revision petitioner has not first approached the First Appellate Court for vacating the exparte interim stay granted in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in CMA. No.17 of 2025. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The petitioner has an efficacious and effective remedy available before the First Appellate Court for vacating the interim stay; the petitioner ought not to have directly sought interference under Article 227 without approaching the First Appellate Court.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The revision petitioner is given liberty to approach the 22nd Additional Court seeking to vacate the exparte order of injunction granted.

¶17

Key takeaways

The revision petitioner shall file his counter within one week from receipt of the copy of the order, and thereafter, within a period of two weeks, the stay application shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶17
Status quo as on date shall prevail.ratio¶17
The First Appellate Court shall decide the injunction application on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court or by the concession shown by the revision petitioner.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.B. Balaji, J.), by order dated 09.07.2025, disposed of CRP.No.2089 of 2025 (with CMP.Nos.12189 of 2025) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Madras Collectorate Colony Resident's Welfare Association challenging the exparte interim stay granted on 30.04.2025 in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in CMA. No.17 of 2025 by the Principal City Civil Court, Chennai (since made over to the XXII Additional City Civil Court). The Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious and effective remedy before the First Appellate Court to vacate the interim stay and declined direct interference; it granted liberty to approach the 22nd Additional Court to vacate the exparte injunction, directed filing of the counter within one week and decision of the stay application within two weeks thereafter on merits and in accordance with law, and directed that status quo as on date prevail. The revision petitioner's counsel undertook that, if ultimately unsuccessful in the injunction application in CMA. No.17 of 2025, no equity would be claimed for the construction/renovation already made; the First Appellate Court was directed to decide the injunction application on its own merits without being influenced by the High Court's observations or the concession. Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.07.2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶4

CRP.No.2089 of 2025

¶5

and CMP. Nos.12189 of 2025

¶6

The Madras Collectorate Colony, Resident's Welfare Association, Regn. No.248/1972, Rep. By its President Shanugavalli Sekar ... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.Collectorate Colony, V.O.C. Colony and Part of Ayyavoo Colony Residents Welfare Association, Rep. By its Secretary K.Perumal 2.Mr.G.Bharathan 3.Mr.K.Subramanian ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in CMA. No.17 of 2025 by the learned Principal City Civil Court, Chennai (Now made over to XXII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai)

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Ganesh for Ms.G.Jaya Shruthi

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.J.Srinivasa Mohan for R2 No Appearance for R1 & R3

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1/4

¶13

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

¶14

The revision has been preferred challenging the order of experte interim stay granted by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A. No.2 of 2025 in CMA. No.17 of 2025.

¶15

After hearing the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner without approaching the First Appellate Court has directly sought for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an efficacious and effective remedy available for vacating the interim stay granted by the First Appellate Court.

¶16

In the light of the above, the appellant is given liberty to approach

¶17

the 22^nd Additional Court seeking to vacate the exparte order of injunction granted. The revision petitioner shall file his counter within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and thereafter, within a period of two weeks, the stay Application shall be decided on merits and in accordance with law. It is also made clear that status quo as on date shall prevail.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that renovation

¶19

2/4

¶20

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

¶21

activities are going on in the temple premises and he has also produced photographs to substantiate the same. However, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner Association has no locus and they are not entitled to put up any construction in the temple premises. The photographs taken yesterday are also produced.

¶22

It is also brought to my notice, only pursuant of the interim stay granted by this Court, renovation activity had re-commenced. In the light of the above, the learned counsel Mr.Ganesh, would also fairly undertake that in the event of ultimately not succeeding before the Court, in the injunction application which is being tested by the First Appellate Court in CMA. No.17 of 2025, the petitioner will not claim any equity for the construction and renovation that is already put up/made as on date.

¶23

The First Appellate Court shall decide the injunction Application on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court or by the concession shown by the revision petitioner, which is only in the interest of the Temple and not the parties who are claiming right to administer the temple.

¶24

P.B.BALAJI.J.,

¶25

3/4

¶26

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

¶27

rkp

¶28

In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Connected

¶29

Miscellaneous is also closed. No costs.

¶30

09.07.2025

¶31

Speaking/Non-speaking : Yes/No Index : Yes / No rkp To 1. The Judge, Principal City Civil Court, Chennai 2. The Judge, XXII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶32

CRP.No.2089 of 2025 and CMP. Nos.12189 of 2025

¶33

4/4

¶34

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

The Madras Collectorate Colony, v. Collectorate Colony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Madras Collectorate Colony, v. Collectorate Colony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Lavanya Vs K. Annadurai

V.Meenakshi Vs R.Viswanathan

Jayageetha Vs Prakash

T.V. Shatrugan Vs Riyaz

T.Natarajan Vs Rajeswari

Gita Vs C.Srikanth