Madras High Court
P.K.Sathishkumar vs V.Amirthalingam on 19 July, 2021
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
and
CMP.No.3002 of 2019
[Through Video Conferencing]
P.K.Sathishkumar ... Petitioner / 6th defendant
vs.
V.Amirthalingam ... Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India praying to set aside the Fair and Final Order dated 11.08.2018 made
in I.A.No.480 of 2017 in O.S.No.702 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional
Distrit Munsif, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Sankaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan
*****
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the 6th defendant in O.S. No.702 of 2015
now pending on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court at
Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
2.The said suit had been filed for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as a
cultivating tenant and also restraining the defendants from evicting the
plaintiff from the suit property as a cultivating tenant except by due process
of law.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that
interference should be done with respect to the order passed in I.A.No.480 of
2017 dated 11.08.2018. The said Interlocutory Application had been filed by
the revision petitioner herein / 6th defendant in the suit.
4.The revision petitioner took advantage of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure and claimed that the suit is barred by law namely
under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.
It is claimed that the suit had been filed for interim injunction and there is no
relief sought for declaration that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant. On that
ground, the said application was laid before the trial Court. The plaintiff
answered that particular allegation by stating that the suit was only for
injunction and not whether the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant and therefore
such a declaration is not required and the Civil Court can grant injunction
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
restraining the defendants from interfering with possession except by due
process of law.
5.The learned I Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore who took up
the said application for consideration, also stated that the relief sought by the
plaintiff is only for a limited purpose and that Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu
Cultivating Tenants Protection Act does not apply to the facts of the case. It
had also been observed by the learned I Additional District Munsif,
Coimbatore that for deciding any application under Order VII Rule 11 of
CPC, a reading of the plaint alone will have to be done and if a reading of
the plaint reveals existence of a cause of action and the suit is maintainable
under Section 9 of CPC, then, the plaint need not be rejected.
6.Heard Mr.K.R.Sankaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and Mr.K.Vasanthanayagan, learned counsel for the respondent.
7.A perusal of the plaint indicates that the plaintiff has always claimed
a right as a cultivating tenant. Thereafter, the plaintiff had stated that the
defendant had interfered with possession and seeks to protect possession. No
occasion had arisen for the plaintiff to seek any declaration since that stand
had not been contested. The relief sought is for a limited purpose and as a
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
matter of fact even the relief is sought that injunction should be granted
restraining eviction except by due process of law. The defendants have a
right to take necessary action in accordance with law.
8.There is no necessity to interfere with the order passed and
therefore, I concur with the order of the I Additional District Munsif Court at
Coimbatore.
9.The Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Let the parties join issues
by filing written statement. I am confident that necessary issues will be
framed and if in the written statement, the defendant raises an issue of
maintainability, the learned I Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore may
also framed issue on that particular aspect and pass a Judgment after
considering the evidence recorded.
10.With the said observation the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No order
as to costs.
19.07.2021
Internet: Yes/No
ssi
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
To
1.The I Additional District Munsif,
Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
ssi
CRP(PD)No.451 of 2019
19.07.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
