Madras High Court
V.N.Devadoss vs J.Ravikumar on 1 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.12.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
O.S.A.No.216 of 2021
and C.M.P.Nos. 8839 to 8841 of 2021
1.V.N.Devadoss
2.N.Baskar
3.B.Baskaran
4.D.Padma
..Appellants
Vs
J.Ravikumar ..Respondent
Appeal preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S. Rules r/w
Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the fair and decreetal order dated
16.04.2021 made in O.A.No.255 of 2020 in C.S.No.162 of 2020.
For Appellants .. Mr.P.R.Raman,
Senior Advocate
for Mr.C.Seethapathy
For Respondents .. Mr.V.Chandraprabu
for caveator
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
Challenge in this appeal is made to the order passed by learned
single Judge dated 16 April 2021 recorded on O.A.No.255 of 2020 in
C.S.No.162 of 2020. This appeal is by the original plaintiffs.
2. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. Learned senior advocate for the appellants has taken this
Court extensively through the reasons, observations and directions of
learned single Judge while passing the impugned order rejecting the
application for injunction. Serious grievance is made on behalf of the
appellant that, in the suit for injunction, what worst could have
happened to the plaintiffs is rejection of the application for interim
injunction, however, the impugned order travels much beyond it.
4. Having heard learned senior advocate for the appellants and
learned advocate for the original defendant / present respondent, we
find that the point for consideration before learned single Judge was
whether in the facts of the case, the plaintiffs were entitled to
injunction as prayed for or not. If the Court was of the view that
injunction was not required to be granted, the application could
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
certainly have been rejected, however while rejecting the application,
learned single Judge has given various directions to the State
authorities to look into the affairs of the appellants including qua
some parcel of land, which according to the appellants had already
attained finality, including the scrutiny by this Court. Since the same
was so or not, could not be the point at issue in the suit in question
and therefore could not have been the point at issue while deciding
the injunction application, the same necessarily can not be the issue
before this Court in this appeal as well. Therefore, though learned
advocate for the original defendant attempted to address this Court
qua that point, we have not entertained that argument.
5. Suffice it to note that, the impugned order is unsustainable
on more than one grounds. The same is quashed and set aside.
6. We note that, while issuing notice on 19.05.2021 the
directions contained in para 34 of the impugned judgment / order
were stayed, by the subsequent order dated 30.09.2021, interim
injunction operating in favour of the appellants / plaintiffs - during
the pendency of the application, was also restored by the Court.
7. However, we find that when the injunction application is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be rejected simplicitor, even that injunction would also not hold the
field. Needless to observe that, if any fresh cause of action arises for
the appellants, appropriate action be taken in accordance with law.
8. This original side appeal is allowed in the above terms. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.U.J.,) (S.S.K.J.,)
01.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/5
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
mmi
O.S.A.No.216 of 2021
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
