Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1768 (MAD)

Kulasekaran v. Aruljothi

2010-04-13

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, dated 23.11.2009, made in I.A.No.353 of 2009, in O.S.No.84 of 2007. 2. The petitioner had filed the suit, in O.S.No.84 of 2007, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai, praying for a decree of bare injunction against the defendant therein, who is the respondent in the present civil revision petition. While so, the petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.353 of 2009, in O.S.No.84 of 2007, praying that the trial Court should stay the further proceedings in the suit, in O.S.No.84 of 2007, till the disposal of the writ petition, in W.P.No.4458 of 2009, pending on the file of this Court. 3. In the affidavit filed in the interlocutory application, it had been stated that the information to be furnished by the respondent in the writ petition, with regard to the lay out, in respect of the suit property, would be useful to the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.84 of 2007. 4. The trial Court by its fair and decretal order, dated 23.11.2009, had dismissed the interlocutory application stating that it is not proper for the trial Court to exercise the inherent powers, under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to stay the suit proceedings pending disposal of the writ petition before the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Madras. It had also been stated that no case had been made out by the petitioner to invoke the principles enshrined in Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It had also been observed that the rights and the obligations of the parties concerned could be decided, with reference to the available documents and the oral evidence to be let in during the proceedings in the suit. 5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition stating that the trial Court had failed to exercise its inherent powers, under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to stay the suit proceedings, in O.S.No.84 of 2007. It has also been stated that the trial Court had failed to see that the ingredients of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had not been satisfied in the present case. 6. It has also been stated that the trial Court had failed to see that the ingredients of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had not been satisfied in the present case. 6. The learned counsel had also submitted that the trial Court had failed to see that the certified copy of the lay out approval plan, in respect of the Jothi Nagar lay out, is absolutely necessary to decide the issues involved in the suit and that the issues involved in the writ petition, in W.P.No.4458 of 2009, has a direct bearing on the issues to be challenged during the proceedings in the civil suit, in O.S.No.84 of 2007. 7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. 8. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that it is necessary for the trial Court to stay the proceedings in the suit, in O.S.No.84 of 2007, till the disposal of the writ petition, in W.P.No.4458 of 2009. It is also clear that the inherent power of the Courts below cannot be exercised for granting such a relief, unless it is found that it is absolutely necessary. It is for the petitioner to substantiate his claims in the suit, in O.S.No.84 of 2007, pending on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai, by the available documentary and oral evidence. However, it is not open to him to state that the proceedings before the trial Court, in O.S.No.84 of 2007, should be stayed till the disposal of the writ petition, which is said to be pending on the file of this Court. As such, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.