Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 622 (MAD)

V. Amutha v. Venkatesan & Another

2009-02-19

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Inveighing the order dated 07.08.2007 made in CMA No.4 of 2007 by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet as against the order and decree made in I.A.No.2613 of 2006 in O.S.No.600 of 2006 dated 05.02.2007 on the file of District Munsif, Alandur, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.600 of 2006 seeking permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.2613 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction. After hearing both sides and also marking Exs.P1 to P9 on the petitioners side and Exs.R1 to R14 on the defendants side, the lower Court granted interim injunction. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferrred CMA No.4 of 2007 before the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu and the said Court set aside the order of the lower Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop her argument to the effect that the petitioner is the second purchaser from the Power of Attorney of the original owners and it appears subsequently without cancelling the said Power of Attorney, some of the co-sharers have sold the very same property purchased by the plaintiff; under such circumstances, the plaintiff being the prior purchaser is entitled to equitable relief of injunction. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents seeks adjournment. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not incline to adjourn, but I like to dispose of the matter from the available materials. 5. A bare poring and perusal of the order of the Courts below as well as the typed set of papers would demonstrate and display that the defendants are disputing the very Power of Attorney. According to them, only some of the co-sharers of a vast extent of undivided land executed the power deed but relating to other co-sharers share, the Power of Attorney was a forged one. As such, considering these facts, the first Appellate Court set aside the order of the lower Court. 6. According to them, only some of the co-sharers of a vast extent of undivided land executed the power deed but relating to other co-sharers share, the Power of Attorney was a forged one. As such, considering these facts, the first Appellate Court set aside the order of the lower Court. 6. It is a well settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not delve deep into the factual aspects and re-appreciate the evidence. However, ex facie and prima facie, I could see no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Court in reversing the order of the lower Court on the ground that there is a serious dispute relating to the very Power of Attorney itself. Indubitably and indisputably, the suit property is a plot and the plaintiff herself admitted that it is a vacant one and in such a case, pending disposal of the suit, I am of the view that status quo, namely the plot being vacant should be maintained and neither the plaintiff nor the defendants shall raise any construction till the disposal of the suit itself. I would direct that the lower Court shall see that the suit itself O.S.No.600 of 2006 being an injunction suit is disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.