Madras High Court
K.V.Subramaniam vs Mr.G.Narayana Raja on 7 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
and
M.P No.4593 of 2016
K.V.Subramaniam ..Appellant
Vs.
1.K.V.Purushothaman
2.K.V.Krishnamoorthy
3.G.Jayalakshmi
4.M/s.Sree Hi-Tech Construction
A partnership firm, rep. by partners
1. Mr.G.Narayana Raja
2. Mrs.N.Praveena ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of
CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 02.03.2016 in I.A
No.18 of 2016 in O.S.No.7103 of 2014 on the file of the XVIII
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan
For Respondents: Mr.N.A.Sukumaran for R1
Mrs.M.Akila for R2
Mr.T.Viswanatha Rao for R4
No Appearance for R3
JUDGMENT
The fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.18 of 2016 in
O.S.No.7103 of 2014 dated 02.03.2016 is under challenge in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant is the plaintiff, who instituted the suit to declare
the cancellation of settlement deed dated 15.09.2014 as null and void
and for decree of partition and separate possession and for permanent
injunction. Along with the suit in O.S No.7103 of 2014, the appellant
filed an interlocutory application in I.A No.18 of 2016 for interim
junction. The trial Court considered the grounds raised by the parties to
the interlocutory application and declined to grant interim injunction
Challenging the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
filed.
3. There is no interim injunction granted at the time of the
admission of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal is
pending for the past about 4 years. The suit was instituted by the
appellant on 11.12.2014 in O.S No.7103 of 2014. Thus, there is no
interim injunction in the suit for the past about 6 years. Thus, granting
of an interim injunction at this point of time is not preferable. Contrary,
the parties to the suit can adjudicate the matter by producing documents
and adducing evidence. On the ground of efflux of time, there is no
interim injunction either in the suit or in the present appeal for the past
about 6 years. The present appeal challenging the fair order passed in
the interlocutory application is also pending without any interim order.
4. This being the factum, the trial Court is directed to dispose of
the main suit as expeditiously as possible by affording opportunity to all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
the parties concerned. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to
consider the grounds raised in the appeal for grant of interim injunction.
Thus, the fair and decreetal order dated 02.03.2016 passed in I.A No.18
of 2016 in O.S No.7103 of 2014 stands confirmed. Secondly, the
present Miscellaneous Appeal No.554 of 2016 stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.01.2021
uma
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The XVIII Additional City Civil Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
uma
C.M.A.No.554 of 2016
C.M.P.No.4593 of 2016
07.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
