Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1111 (MAD)

Salmabee v. Abdulla

2010-03-18

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 3.2.2010, made in I.A.No.2 of 2010, in C.M.A.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, against the order, dated 7.12.2009, made in I.A.No.966 of 2009, in O.S.No.371 of 2009, on the file of the learned District Munsif Judge, Perambalur. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition, who is the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.371 of 2009, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Perambalur, had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.966 of 2009, praying for an order of interim injunction. The said interlocutory application had been dismissed, on 7.1.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal, in C.M.A.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur. The petitioner had also filed an interlocutory application before the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, in I.A.No.2 of 2010, praying for an order of interim injunction. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, by his order, dated 3.2.2010, had dismissed the said application. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred the present civil revision petition before this Court. 3. The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, even though the petitioner is in possession of the suit scheduled property in question, the respondent is putting up a construction in the said property. The learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, had dismissed the interlocutory application, in I.A.No.2 of 2010, without adverting to the merits of the case. Pursuant to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, dated 3.2.2010, the respondent is continuing the construction in the suit property. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the Civil Revision Petition, both the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned had submitted that it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, to take up the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2010, for hearing and disposal, at an early date. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, is directed to hear and dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the learned Subordinate Judge, Perambalur, is directed to hear and dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1 of 2010, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 are closed.