Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 835 (MAD)

Dhanraj v. Govindasamy

2013-02-08

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. C.R.P.(PD) No. 277 of 2011 is filed against the order in allowing the application filed by the second respondent herein. The prayer therein was not to consider the documents which were filed in the main suit while considering the interim application filed by the petitioners herein seeking for temporary injunction. 2. C.R.P.(PD) No. 278 of 2011 is filed against the order dismissing the application filed by petitioners herein seeking for considering the documents filed in the main suit as Exs. A1 to A6, while considering the interim application seeking for temporary injunction. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.2 of 2009 are the petitioners and the defendants thereon are the respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions. 3. The suit is one for permanent injunction. Originally, the petitioners as the plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 3 of 2009 along with the main suit and sought for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. It is stated that the said application came to be closed by the trial Court on the reason that the suit itself was ripe for trial. However, the petitioners herein filed another application in I.A.No. 509 of 2009 for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed therein, seeking for temporary injunction once again, pending disposal of the suit. When the said application was taken up for consideration, the second respondent herein filed I.A.No. 308 of 2010 praying the trial Court not to consider the documents marked by the plaintiffs/ petitioners under Exs.A1 to A6 in the main suit, while considering the application in I.A.No. 509 of 2009 seeking for temporary injunction. Likewise, the petitioners herein also filed I.A.No. 401 of 2010 seeking for consideration of those documents under Exs.A1 to A6 marked in the main suit, while considering the application for temporary injunction in I.A.No. 509 of 2009. The Court below allowed the application in I.A.No. 308 of 2010 and rejected the application in I.A.No.401 of 2010 only on the reason that those documents in Exs.A1 to A6 marked by the plaintiffs in the main suit were not subjected to cross examination and the same could be done only at the time of trial in the main suit. Therefore, the Court below did not proceed to consider the documents of Exs.A1 to A6 marked in the main suit. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 4. Therefore, the Court below did not proceed to consider the documents of Exs.A1 to A6 marked in the main suit. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. 5. From the facts placed before this court, it is seen that the suit in O.S.No. 2 of 2009 itself came to be filed by the petitioners seeking for permanent injunction. The suit came to be filed in the year 2009. Originally, an application filed seeking for temporary injunction came to be disposed of or closed on the reason that the suit itself was ripe for trial. Therefore, when that was the position, the Court below ought to have taken up the suit and disposed of the same on merits. However, as the petitioners filed another application in I.A.No. 509 of 2009 seeking for temporary injunction once again, the present dispute had arisen by filing applications one by the petitioners and another by the second respondent as stated supra. 6. As the suit itself is for permanent injunction, instead of considering the application filed for temporary injunction in I.A.No. 509 of 2009, it would meet the ends of justice, if the trial Court is directed to take up the main suit itself and dispose of the same on merits. If the main suit itself is taken up and decided one way or other, these applications and the orders made therein may become infructuous. At this juncture, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for either side that a connected suit in O.S.No.232 of 2008 filed by the second respondent seeking for partition arraying the petitioners and the first respondent as defendants is also clubbed along with O.S.No.2 of 2009 by the Court below. 7. Considering all these facts and submissions, without going into the merits of the said applications and the orders passed therein, I direct the Court below to take up both the suits in O.S.No. 232 of 2008 and O.S.No.2 of 2009 together and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.