J.Wilfred Prasadh vs Joseph
2021 Latest Caselaw 364 Mad

                                                                      C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and
                                                                             M.P.No.1 of 2015

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 06.01.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                               C.M.A.No.639 of 2015
                                                      and
                                                 M.P No.1 of 2015

                     J.Wilfred Prasadh                                     ..Appellant
                                                       Vs.

                     1.Joseph

                     2.C.Chandra David @ Pappu

                     3.Evanjulin @ Pappi

                     4.Freeda Jonathan

                     5.Daniel

                     6.C.Sathyamoorthy

                     7.David Chellaiya
                                                                         ..Respondents
                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of
                     CPC, against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.01.2014 passed in
                     I.A.No.903 of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2012 on the file of the III
                     Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.



                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                            C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and
                                                                                   M.P.No.1 of 2015



                                     For Appellant      : No appearance

                                     For Respondents    : No appearance


                                                     JUDGMENT

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 30.01.2014 passed in

I.A.No.903 of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2012 on the file of the III

Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem, is under challenge in the

present civil miscellaneous appeal.

2. The suit was instituted by the appellant for partition and to

appoint a Commissioner to divide the property. Along with the suit, the

appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking an interim

injunction. The Trial Court declined to grant interim injunction mainly

on the ground that the grounds raised in interlocutory application are

insufficient to grant an order of interim injunction and the issue sought

to be tried and decided finally in the civil suit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

3. The suit was instituted in the year 2012 and is pending without

any interim injunction for the past about eight years. Thus, at this length

of time, it is not preferable to grant an interim injunction in the civil suit

and the balance of convenience required

is that the parties are bound to establish their rights to produce

documents and adduce evidences.

4. While granting an interim order of interim injunction, the

Courts are bound to adopt a pragmatic approach in a balanced manner

without causing prejudice to either of the parties to the suit. The

principles for grant of interim injunction are though derived by the

Courts, the facts and circumstances of each case play a privical role and

therefore, the Courts must be cautious while granting interim injunction

in favour of the either of the parties.

5. The adjudication on merits raised in the appeal deserves no

consideration at this point of time as the suit was instituted in the year

2012 and no interim order is in force for the past about eight years.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

Thus, it is not preferable to grant any interim injunction at this length of

time and the suit is to be decided on merits by affording opportunity to

all the parties in the investigation.

6. On account of efflux of time, this Court is not inclined to grant

an interim injunction in the suit for partition. Therefore, the parties are at

liberty to adjudicate the issues on merits by producing documents and

adducing evidences in the suit. Since the suit is pending for eight years,

the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as

possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. The parties to the suit are directed to

cooperate for the earlier disposal of the suit. The Trial Court should

decline unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds if sought for by the

parties to the suit. The adjournments sought are to be granted only on

genuine grounds and by recording reasons. Thus, the Trial Court is

expected to proceed with the case without granting any unnecessary

adjournments either at the instance of the parties or by the Courts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

7. Accordingly, the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.903

of 2012 in O.S.No.154 of 2012 dated 30.01.2014, stands confirmed and

consequently, C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 stands dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.01.2021

Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order gsk

To The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Salem.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

gsk

C.M.A.No.639 of 2015 and M.P No.1 of 2015

06.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/