Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3597 (MAD)

S. Ramasamy & Another v. R. Senthil Kumar

2009-09-08

R.SUDHAKAR

body2009
Judgment :- The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants challenging the order and decreetal order dated 11. 2009 passed in I.A.No.342 of 2008 in O.S.No.391 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District. 2. The suit is filed before the Sub Court, Namakkal against the revision petitioners/defendants for partition and separate possession. Pending suit I.A.No.342 of 2008 has been filed for restoring electricity supply to the upstair portion of the suit property and water supply to the over tank which is stated has been disconnected at the instance of the first defendant. The petition has been filed by the son of the first defendant stating that he has a child 60 days old and the temporary disconnection of electricity and water supply is seriously harming the interest of the family. In support of the petition and occupation Exs.P-1 to P-3 were marked. Present revision petitioners, the defendants, the father and the other son resisted the petition stating that the said relief should not be granted, and that the plaintiff was residing in a different place. 3. A report of the advocate commissioner was placed before the court. Based on the documentary evidence and the report of the advocate commissioner, court below came to conclusion that prima facie the plaintiff will be entitled to restoration of electricity and water supply connection and granted the interim relief pending disposal of the suit. 4. The Revision Petitioners, the defendants have not shown any document before the court below that the respondent/plaintiff is residing at a different place. The suit is for partition and that too between father and two sons. In view of the report of the advocate commissioner which speaks of disconnection of electricity and water supply at the instance of the first defendant and the documents furnished , viz., Exs.P-1 to P-3 based on which the court below came to conclusion that prima facie case has been made out by the respondent/plaintiff for the interim relief, this court is unable to find any impropriety or illegality in the order under challenge. Furthermore, petitioners have not shown before the court below or before this court that Exs.P-1 to P-3 are not relevant to prove the occupation of the upstairs portion of the suit property by the plaintiff. Furthermore, petitioners have not shown before the court below or before this court that Exs.P-1 to P-3 are not relevant to prove the occupation of the upstairs portion of the suit property by the plaintiff. In any event, revision petitioners have not produced Exs.P-1 to P-3 to enable this court to come to a different conclusion from that of the court below. 5. Finding no merits, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.