Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4422 (MAD)

T. Ganesan & Another v. B. Murugeswaran & Another

2008-11-28

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition as against the order dated 210. 2008 in I.A.No.17727 of 2008 in O.S.No.7155 of 2005 passed by the Principal Session Judge, Chennai in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying to stop further proceedings in O.S.No.7155 of 2005 pending disposal of Special Leave Petition No.20895 of 2008. 2.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.17727 of 2008 is an erroneous one and as against the weightage of law and all probabilities of the case and that the trial Court has erroneously misinterpreted the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court and that the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that the Honble Supreme Court is seized of the matter and this aspect of the matter has not been taken into account by the trial Court and that the trial Court has proceeded to commence the case for disposal of the same without waiting for the outcome of the Special Leave Petition which amounts to an abuse of process and therefore, prays for allowing the revision in the interest of justice. 3. Contending contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the application is correct in law and that the trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while dismissing the application and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court sitting in revision. .4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the Honble Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).20895 of 2008 in its order dated 11.09.2008 has issued notice and ordered status quo, as regards possession, as obtaining today, shall be maintained until further orders and therefore, the matter is taken cognizance of the Apex Court and in that view of the matter, the trial Court ought to have stopped further proceedings in O.S.No.7155 of 2005. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents brings it to the notice of the Court that in Special Leave Petition the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs have prayed for an interim relief of ad-interim exparte order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the pre-attachment order dated 04.03.2008 passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.2602 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2008 and to make the said order absolute after hearing the respondent on notice of motion etc. 6. It cannot be gainsaid that in C.R.P.(PD)No.2602 of 2007 this Court on 04.03.2008 has inter alia observed that it is for the petitioners to plead and establish that they are in possession of the property etc. and that the reasonings given by the Court below appears to be reasonable and also on sound reasonings which does not require any interference and resultantly, has confirmed the order dated 09.06.2007 passed in I.A.No.502 of 2007 in O.S.No.7155 of 2005 passed by the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 7. It is to be noted that C.R.P.(PD)No.2602 of 2007 has been filed as against I.A.No.502 of 2007 praying for the issuance of subpoena to the Tahsildar for production of revenue records which is the subject matter of S.L.P. 8. In C.R.P.No.337 of 2007 a direction has been issued by this Court on 04.03.2008 to the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.7155 of 2005 and other two suits within a period of three months etc. .9. In view of the fact that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have only prayed for an interim exparte order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the pre-attachment order dated 04.03.2008 passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD)No.2602 of 2007 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2008 in Special Leave Petition and inasmuch as the Honourable Supreme Court on 11.09.2008 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.20895 of 2008 has issued notice and directed status quo as regards possession, as obtaining today, shall be maintained until further orders, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impediment for the continuation of further proceedings in O.S.No.7155 of 2005 and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.17727 of 2008 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.