Madras High Court
R.Vijayaragavan vs S.Rajeskanna on 22 November, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD).No.575 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No. 5450 of 2021
R.Vijayaragavan ...Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
S.Rajeskanna ...Respondent/Respondent/3rd Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(1)(r) of
Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated
29.03.2021 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of 2020 on the file of
the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi and allow the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondent :Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the
Judgment and Decree, dated 29.03.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.105
of 2020 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.During the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2020, he has filed a
petition in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of 2020 under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking temporary injunction and the same
was dismissed on 29.03.2021. Against the dismissal order, the revision
petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
3.Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner and Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
4.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed on the ground that the
learned Judge has failed to consider to grant of injunction restraining the
respondent from alienating the suit property would not cause any prejudice to
the respondent as the validity of the sale deed of the respondent is subjected
to the result of the suit. The learned Judge has failed to consider that as the
prima facie case stands in favour of this Appellant is entitled for grant of
injunction.
5.The revision petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to
set aside the order, dated 29.03.2021 in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of
2020 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6.The said I.A.No.01 of 2020 in O.S.No.105 of 2020 has filed by this
revision petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 to restrain the respondent
herein from alienating the said property till the disposal of the suit. The II
Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi, has dismissed the petition on the
ground that questioning the sale agreement. Under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2
petition, the Court cannot go into the entire merits of the case, further any
alienation in pending suit is hit by lis pendens.
7.Accordingly, the learned II Additional District Judge, Thoothukudi,
is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.105 of 2020, within a period of
Three months, from the date of receipt of copy of the order, without
influencing the averments stated in the Order in I.A.No.01 of 2020 in
O.S.No.105 of 2020.
8.With these observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 30.11.2021
Internet:Yes/No
ksa
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The II Additional District Judge,
Thoothukudi,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Order made in
C.M.A.(MD).No.575 of 2021
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
