Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2627 (MAD)

S. M. Syed Jainudeen v. Durairaj

2012-06-22

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 27.3.2012 passed by the District Judge, Thiruvarur, in I.A.No.31 of 2011 in A.S.No.11 of 2011, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice to the respondents is not necessary, in view of the order being passed hereunder. 3. The grievance of the revision petitioner/plaintiff, as highlighted by his counsel, could succinctly and precisely be encapsulated in a few broad stroke hereunder: (i) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit seeking several reliefs. Ultimately, the suit was decreed granting the following reliefs: “Tamil” (ii) The second defendant preferred the appeal and he also filed the I.A.No.31 of 2011 seeking stay. Whereupon the appellate Court, vide order dated 27.3.2012 granted stay, without imposing any condition. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition is focussed on various grounds. 5. What I could understand from the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner hereunder/plaintiff is that the appellate Court, while ordering stay, should have imposed certain conditions, so as to safe-guard the interest of the revision petitioner herein/plaintiff to recover the amount awarded by the trial Court, in the event of the appeal being dismissed. 6. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The perusal of the order of the appellate Court would show that absolutely it has not applied its mind on that aspect. It appears, the relief granted by the trial Court for mandatory injunction alone loomed large in the mind of the appellate Court and virtually he thought that pending the appeal if mandatory injunction is executed then that would nullify the very appeal itself. However, the appellate Court has not concentrated on the aspect of damages for use and occupation and to safe-guard the recovery of it, in the event of appeal being dismissed. 7. Hence, I am of the view that this civil revision petition could be disposed with the following direction. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner to file an application airing his grievance and also praying the appellate Court to order the other side to deposit the amount either in full or in part or to furnish security for the amount concerned. Whereupon the appellate Court shall hear both sides and pass suitable orders as per law. 8. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner to file an application airing his grievance and also praying the appellate Court to order the other side to deposit the amount either in full or in part or to furnish security for the amount concerned. Whereupon the appellate Court shall hear both sides and pass suitable orders as per law. 8. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.