Madras High Court
Anil Ann Kuruvilla vs Menakabai S.Nikam on 4 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
1.Anil Ann Kuruvilla
2.Asha Susan Mathew
3.Anju S.Mathew ..Appellants
Vs.
1.Menakabai S.Nikam
2.Shakuntala S.Nikam
3.Supriya S.Nikam
4.Meena S.Nikam
5.Anand S.Nikam
6.N.Arunachalam
7.M.Damodharan
8.P.Devi ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r)
of CPC, to set aside the order and decreetal order 16.08.2019
made in I.A.No.12072 of 2018 in O.S.No.5059 of 2018 on the file
of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with costs throughout.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Nirmala Devi for R6
RR1 to 5 and 7 & 8-Ex-parte.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The Judgment and Decree dated 16.08.2019 passed in
I.A.No.12072 of 2018 in O.S.No.5059 of 2018 is sought to be set
aside in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs, who instituted a suit for
declaration of title and permanent injunction. Along with the suit,
the appellants filed an interlocutory application for interim
injunction.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants made a submission
that the interim injunction was initially granted by the trial Court
and after filing a counter by the defendants, the interim injunction
granted was vacated by the trial Court. Thus, the present appeal is
filed against the said order.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants is of the opinion
that the respondent has no right whatsoever in respect of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
property and a prima facie case was established by the appellants
at the time of institution of the suit and the trial Court has rightly
granted the interim injunction. Thus, the dismissal of the
interlocutory application after some time is an error apparent and
accordingly the appeal is liable to be allowed.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent sterroneously
opposed the contention of the appellant by stating that the
appellants had suppressed certain materials and facts before the
trial Court and obtained an order of interim injunction. Therefore,
the trial Court rightly vacated the interim injunction and rejected
the interlocutory application filed by the appellants along with the
suit and there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order
passed by the trial Court at this juncture and the appeal is to be
dismissed.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the interim
orders are to be granted by the Courts by adopting a balancing
approach and a pragmatic view is to be taken, without causing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
prejudice to the rights of the parties. Interim order granted by the
Courts should not cause any infringement by either of the parties,
during the pendency of the litigation. Thus, the Courts are expected
to be cautious while granting interim orders in a civil suit.
Undoubtedly, the rights of the parties are to be established through
the documents and evidence by conducting a full-fledged trial.
However, grant of interim order, if just and necessary, then alone,
the Courts can grant interim orders and not otherwise.
7. The principles for grant of interim order, though
enumerated by the Courts on various circumstances, ultimately,
grant or not grant is vested with the discretion of the Courts
concerned which is to be exercised based on the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, declining an order of interim
injunction or granting an order of interim injunction must be based
on the facts and circumstances by adopting a pragmatic approach.
8. Though an interim injunction was granted in the present
case on hand, it was vacated at the instance of the respondent by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
the trial Court. On perusal of the records, it reveals that the trial
Court vacated the interim orders based on certain vital facts
furnished and therefore, to decide the issues, the full-fledged trial
is to be conducted.
9. It is made clear that the observations or findings in the
order now under challenge shall not influence the trial Court, while
considering the issues at the time of deciding the suit finally. In
other words, the suit is to be decided uninfluenced by any findings
arrived in the interlocutory application order passed by the trial
Court.
10. As far as the grant of interim injunction is concerned, this
Court is of the opinion that the matter is pending for about 1 ½
years, thus, granting of interim order at this length of time is not
preferable. The parties are at liberty to adjudicate the same by
filing documents and evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court
is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose the suit as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With these observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
stands dismissed. No costs.
04.01.2021
ssb
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssb
C.M.A.No.4426 of 2019
04.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
