Madras High Court
S.Sridhar vs S.Sivashanmugam on 24 November, 2021
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
1.S.Sridhar
2.S.Ganthimathi Sridhar
..Appellants
Vs
1.S.Sivashanmugam
2.S.Kondappan
3.S.Ramakrishnan
4.R.Uma Devi .. Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and Order
XXXVI Rule 11 of O.S. Rules against the order dated 16.10.2020
made in O.A.No.238 of 2020 in C.S.No.156 of 2020.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Ravi
for M/s.Rugan and Arya
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand
for R3 and R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)
This appeal arises from the order passed by learned Single
Judge dated 16.10.2020 in O.A.No.238 of 2020 in C.S.No.156 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
2020.
2. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. They are aggrieved by the
dismissal of injunction application, pending suit.
3. Heard learned advocates. Both the learned advocates have
addressed the Court at length.
4. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants, in
substance is to the effect that refusal to grant injunction by learned
Single Judge is erroneous, since according to him the plaintiffs have
strong prima facie case, balance of convenience is in their favour,
coupled with the fact that according to him, irreparable loss would be
caused to them if the injunction as prayed for is not granted. In
support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellants has
taken this Court through the sanctioned plan, the terms of agreement
between the contesting parties etc., The grievance in substance
pertains to car parking, usage of common area, with whom the keys
of the common toilet should be etc.,. It is submitted that injunction
as prayed for be granted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the contesting
respondents has submitted that, the arrangements, which are
complained are in place since years, and only because of certain
other issues, the suit is filed in the year 2020. It is submitted that the
contesting respondents are staying on the ground floor. It is
submitted that no interference be made by this Court in the order
passed by learned Single Judge.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record, it has transpired that
the issues addressed before this Court pertain to, taking keys from
the watchman at the time of usage of toilet by the driver of the
plaintiffs, car parking etc. We find that, learned Single Judge, on the
basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner has considered the
rival contentions (in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the impugned order) and
has found that even if the grievances of the plaintiffs are right, at this
interim stage, no injunction would have served any purpose and in
the facts of the case, no mandatory direction could have been given.
We have considered the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge
vis-a-vis the stakes of the matter, on the face of material on record.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
Additionally, what right the plaintiffs could assert as co-owners of the
property, is also an aspect, which may further tilt balance against
them.
7. For the above reasons, this Original Side Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.5320 of 2021
is closed. Needless to observe that the dismissal of this appeal is not
to weigh against the appellants while deciding the suit.
(P.U., J) (S.S.K., J)
24.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
ssm/14
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
ssm
O.S.A.No.112 of 2021
24.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
