Disposed¶28

M.G.Singaravel v. M.G.Selvam

Madras HC24 Mar 2026CMP(MD)/2495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.M.P(MD)No.2495 of 2025 in A.S(MD)No.68 of 2025; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; order dated 24.03.2026 by G.R.Swaminathan J. with R. Poornima on the Bench; interim injunction sought to restrain alienation or encumbrance of suit properties in O.S.No.183 of 2016 (specific performance suit; trial Court declined specific performance and ordered refund of advance amount); portion of suit property already sold to third party during suit pendency; Court disposed of petition holding no formal injunction needed as rights of parties abide by eventual outcome of suit; no statute or precedent cited; no quantum stated.

What did the court decide?

None; no formal order of injunction passed, as the rights of the parties were held to abide by the eventual outcome of the suit proceedings. ¶28

M.G.Singaravel Vs M.G.Selvam — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P(MD)No.2495 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.03.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA C.M.P(MD)No.2495 of 2025

¶8

¶9

A.S(MD)No.68 of 2025

¶10

M.G.Singaravel

¶11

... Petitioner / Appellant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.M.G.Selvam 2.S.Kannadasan 3.S.Abdul 4.R.Harshavardhan 5.R.Dharanidharan ... Respondents / Respondents

¶14

Prayer: To grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their men, or third parties in any way alienating or encumbering the suit properties subject matter of O.S.No.183 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli more particularly described in the schedule, pending disposal of the above Appeal Suit.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arul Jayatram

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

C.M.P(MD)No.2495 of 2025

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.Raguvarangopalan for Mr.Manisekaran for R.3 to R.5

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5.

¶23

2.The petitioner is the appellant herein. The suit is one for specific performance. The petitioner claims to be an agreement holder. The trial Court declined to grant the relief of specific performance but the alternative relief of refund of the advance amount was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

¶24

3.The petitioner wants this Court to restrain the respondents from further alienating or encumbering the suit property. The learned counsel the respondents 3 to 5 states that even during the pendency of the suit, a portion of suit property had already been sold in favour of a third party. Since the rights of the parties would abide by the eventual outcome of the suit proceedings, there is no need to pass any formal order of injunction.

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

C.M.P(MD)No.2495 of 2025

¶28

4.The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

[G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.] 24.03.2026

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA