Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2481 (MAD)

E. Manishankar v. E. Manoharan

2014-08-08

S.VIMALA

body2014
Judgment : 1. The plaintiff / E.Manoharan filed a suit in O.S.No.1353 of 2012, seeking the relief of recovery of possession. By the judgment, dated 06.03.2014, the suit was decreed, granting one month time for the defendant to vacate the property. Challenging the same, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.149 of 2014. 1.1. In the appeal, notice was ordered on 07.04.2014 returnable by 29.04.2014. Contending that, on 07.04.2014, the plaintiff and his henchmen forcibly evicted the defendant from the suit property and also made the property unsuitable for occupation by demolishing the wall, the defendant filed three Interlocutory Applications before the Sub Court, seeking directions: (a) to the respondent to re-deliver possession of the property; (b) to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner dealing with 'B' schedule property; and (c) for advance hearing. 3. Contending that the first appellate court is insisting upon the main appeal to be heard on merits, without passing orders on the three Interlocutory Applications filed and seeking directions to the appellate court, these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed. 4. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent do not take delivery of the possession of the property, as described in the decree. 4.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even though in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed in CMP No.17 of 2014 (which is filed in the typed set of papers), it is stated that the respondent had taken possession as per the decree, before this Court, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has not taken possession of the property, as described in the decree and that this submission made before this Court must be recorded. 4.2. Accordingly, this submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent that possession of the suit property has not been taken delivery by the respondent / plaintiff is recorded. 5. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there were three locks in the suit property and the respondent must be directed to remove one of the locks put up by him. 5. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there were three locks in the suit property and the respondent must be directed to remove one of the locks put up by him. But, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not put up any lock in the suit property and therefore, there is no question of removing the lock from the suit property. 5.1. This submission of the learned counsel on both sides is also recorded. 6. Inasmuch as the learned counsel for the plaintiff / respondent submitted that the respondent has not taken delivery of possession of the property in dispute under the suit, there is no question of ordering any relief as claimed by the Revision Petitioner. 7. Recording the above submissions made, the first appellate court is directed to proceed with the appeal in A.S.No.149 of 2014 and to dispose it of, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. These Civil Revision Petitions are disposed off accordingly. No costs. Consequently the connected MP is closed.