Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4033 (MAD)

Munirathnamma v. Saroja

2011-09-20

M.Y.EQBAL

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The second plaintiff-petitioner has filed this civil revision petition against the docket order whereby the plaint was returned on the ground that the suit cannot be numbered without complying with the requirements of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. The second plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:- a) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and their men from interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and restrain them from evicting the plaintiffs illegally without resorting to the provisions of the Land Enforcement Act. b) Grant costs, and c) grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem fir in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 3. The plaintiff’s suit was based on possession of the Government land, and the stand taken was that she cannot be evicted without resorting to the provisions of the Land Enforcement Act. However, it appears from the plaint that before the date when the plaint was presented, she was evicted from the suit property, which the is a tiled house. 4. For better appreciation, paragraph-V of the plaint is extracted herein below:- “The plaintiffs submit that the defendants at the instigation and ill-advise of the enemies of the plaintiffs have started demanding the plaintiffs to vacate the suit schedule properties without any statutory notice as contemplated under the Act. The plaintiffs cannot be evicted summarily by the defendants without resorting to the provisions of Land Enforcement Act. That all of a sudden on 08.12.2006, the defendants 1 to 3 at the instigation of the defendants 4 & 5 have illegally removed the Mangalore tiled house and demolished the same without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs. That even today there are traces of the foundation of the Mangalore tiled house in the suit schedule properties. Now, it has been proclaimed by defendants 1 to 3 that the suit schedule properties are required for the purpose of defendants 4 and 5. The plaintiffs protested with the illegal activities of the defendants. But the defendants went back stating that again they would come with large force and evict the plaintiffs summarily from the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are also filing separate petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C for the grant of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs protested with the illegal activities of the defendants. But the defendants went back stating that again they would come with large force and evict the plaintiffs summarily from the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs are also filing separate petition under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C for the grant of temporary injunction. The defendants are the agents of the Government, and they have got power and at any time they may implement their got and at any time they may implement their words into deeds. If the defendants put their words into deeds, the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be adequately compensated. Since the defendants have acted prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs, it has become necessary for them to file this suit for bare injunction.” 5. From a bare reading of the plaint, I am of the opinion that the suit, as framed, is not at all maintainable, not only for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, but also the suit for bare declaration cannot be entertained. 6. Hence, in my view, the plaint has been rightly returned. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.