C.Anantharaman vs Sathyavathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 16585 Mad

                                                                         C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 18.10.2022

                                                      CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                               C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016
                                                       and
                                              C.M.P.No.15553 of 2016


                     C.Anantharaman
                                                                                ...Petitioner
                                                         Vs.

                     1.Sathyavathi
                     2.K.Raghavendra
                     3.K.Srinivasan
                     4.K.Suriyanarayanan
                     5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
                       Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
                       T.Nagar, Chennai.

                     6.The Assistant Commissioner,
                       Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
                       Vadapalani, Chennai.

                     7.The Inspector of Police,
                       R-1, Police Station,
                       Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.
                                                                             ...Respondents



                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016



                                  Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of
                     Constitution of India, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated
                     21.09.2016 passed by the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in
                     I.A.No.12013 of 2016 in O.S.No.223 of 2016.

                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.V.Anandam

                                        For Respondents    : No appearance for R1 to R4
                                                             Mr.B.Tamilnidhi,
                                                             Additional Government Pleader,
                                                             for R5 to R7


                                                             ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the first defendant in

O.S.No.223 of 2016 on the file of the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil

Court, Chennai.

2. The said suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for relief of

permanent injunction in respect of the suit property prescribed in the plaint

schedule with regard to the T.S.No.1/23 and 1/68. In the said suit, the

defendant appeared and filed the written statement and in that suit the

plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.523 of 2016 for the relief of interim

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016

injunction and the same was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging

the said order, the defendant preferred an appeal, which is pending before

the III Additional District Civil Court. While so, the petitioner filed an

application in I.A.No.12013 of 2016 in O.S.No.223 of 2016 before the trial

Court for police protection to implement the repairing works of the

compound wall available in the suit property. In that application as pointed

out by the learned counsel for the first defendant, he was not added as a

party and only the defendants 3, 4 and 5, who are the police authorities,

were added. The trial Court also granted police protection in favour of the

plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said findings of the trial Court, this present civil

revision petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant

submits that the trial Court failed to take note of the fact that in the police

protection application the plaintiff purposely omitted to include the

defendants 1 and 2 as necessary parties. Suppressing the fact he voluntarily

obtained the order of police protection and the same is liable to be set aside.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016

4. When the matter was taken up today, there is no representation on

the side of the plaintiff. However, on considering the submissions made by

the learned Additional Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it

is clear that in the I.A.No.523 of 2016, the interim injunction was granted in

respect of defendants 1 and 2, but the plaintiff had not included the

defendants 1 and 2 as parties in the police protection application. Therefore,

as strongly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the

learned trial Judge also failed to consider the said facts and it is fair to set

aside the trial Court order.

5. In view of the above, the order of the trial Court is set aside.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. There shall be no order as

to costs.

18.10.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No nsa

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016

To

1.The I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, T.Nagar, Chennai.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vadapalani, Chennai.

4.The Inspector of Police, R-1, Police Station, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.

5.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

nsa

C.R.P.No.3062 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.15553 of 2016

18.10.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis