Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 61 (MAD)

R. Ganapathy v. M. Kamaraj

2013-01-03

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. A resume of the germane facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.201 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs of permanent injunctions such as (i)restraining the first defendant from making any construction; (ii)not to issue any plan approval and also (iii)not to provide permanent electricity service connection. The same plaintiff filed I.A.No.415 of 2012 arraying only the first respondent and got interim injunction not to raise construction in the suit property. In the mean while, the second defendant who is the revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.448 of 2012 for getting himself impleaded in the injunction application in I.A.No.415 of 2012, but that was dismissed, as against which this Civil Revision Petition has been focussed. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there are two defendants in the suit, but without rhyme or any reason, the plaintiff arrayed only the first defendant-Chithra as the respondent in the injunction application and that is purely for the purpose of dis-entitling the second defendant-Ganapathy from effectively resisting the said injunction application. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the order of the Lower Court and for allowing the I.A.No.448 of 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the first respondent / plaintiff has no contra arguments as against the submissions as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner. 4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the second respondent, would vehemently oppose the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: The plaintiff and the second defendant are colluding with each other. In fact, D1-Chithra has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there is a pucca construction in existence thereon. The prayer in the suit is vague as vagueness could be and it cannot be digested by any standard. Admittedly, D1-Chithra is in possession and in such a case, the plaintiff did chose to array Chithra as respondent in the injunction application. It is not the case of D2 that he has been in possession and that interim injunction was granted as against him. In such a case, absolutely there is no merit in this revision. 5. Admittedly, D1-Chithra is in possession and in such a case, the plaintiff did chose to array Chithra as respondent in the injunction application. It is not the case of D2 that he has been in possession and that interim injunction was granted as against him. In such a case, absolutely there is no merit in this revision. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Lower Court. 6. A mere running of the eye over the impugned order passed by the Lower Court would reveal that the Lower Court observed that in I.A.No.415 of 2012, interim injunction was granted only as against Chithra and not against Ganapathy and in such a case, he was not a necessary party to the proceedings. 7. I would like to agree with the argument as put forth and set forth by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner to the extent that when injunction has not been granted as against D2-Ganapathy, the question of D2 being impleaded as one of the parties in I.A.No.415 of 2012 does not arise at all. Furthermore, even as per the case as put forth by the learned counsel for him, Ganapathy happens to be the real owner of the property and he is straining every nerve to see that the property is regained by him. In such a case, if an injunction is in existence as against Chithra to the effect that she should not proceed with the construction in the suit property, certainly he would not be affected. Hence, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Lower Court and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 8. On hearing the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the second respondent would make an extempore submission that necessary direction may be given to the Lower Court to dispose of the I.A.No.415 of 2012 within a time frame. I could see considerable force in his submission. Accordingly, the Lower Court is directed to see that the I.A.No.415 of 2012 is disposed of on merits, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, untrammeled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.