Madras High Court
Madras Mar Thomas Syrian Church vs The Tamil Nadu State Apex on 28 August, 2023
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
Madras Mar Thomas Syrian Church
Represented by its Trustee
Old No.90, New No.38
Harrington Road
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031. .. Petitioner in
both CRPs.
Vs.
1.The Tamil Nadu State Apex
Co-operative Bank Limited
Head Office at No.4, N.S.C.Bose Road
Chennai-600 001
Represented by its Deputy General Manager
Branch at: Old No.89
New No.40, Harrington Road
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031
Represented by its Chief Manager G.Kanraj
2.Thomas Jutta Selva Royan
Represented by his Power of Attorney
Mr.R.Thomas)
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
3.Hema Roy
Represented by her Power of Attorney
Mr.R.Thomas) .. Respondents in
both CRPs.
PRAYER in C.R.P.No.2703 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition is filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal
order dated 18.11.2016 in C.M.A.No.88 of 2015 on the file of XV
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, against the fair and decretal order
dated 14.08.2015 in I.A.No.8275 of 2015 in I.A.No.5482 of 2015 in
I.A.No.5258 of 2015 in O.S.No.1894 of 2015 on the file of the VI
Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
PRAYER in C.R.P.No.2704 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition is filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal
order dated 18.11.2016 in C.M.A.No.24 of 2016 on the file of XV
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, against the fair and decretal order
dated 29.04.2015 in I.A.No.5258 of 2015 in O.S.No.1894 of 2015 on the
file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
In both CRPs
For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel
for Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum
For Respondents : Mr.M.Arunkumar
for M/s.Sampath Kumar Associates
COMMON ORDER
C.R.P.(PD)No.2703 of 2017 has been preferred against the
judgment in C.M.A.No.88 of 2015 dated 18.11.2016 on the file of the
XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, which was in turn preferred
against the fair and decretal order dated 14.08.2015 in I.A.No.8275 of
2015 in I.A.No.5482 of 2015 in I.A.No.5258 of 2015 in O.S.No.1894 of
2015 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. Similarly, C.R.P.(PD)No.2704 of 2017 arises against an order in
C.M.A.No.24 of 2016 dated 18.11.2016 on the file of the XV Additional
City Civil Court, Chennai. C.M.A.No.24 of 2016 was preferred against
the order and decretal order dated 29.04.2015 in I.A.No.5258 of 2015 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
O.S.No.1894 of 2015 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai.
3. The civil revision petitioner is the defendant and the respondents
are the plaintiffs. The suit in O.S.No.1894 of 2015 is one for permanent
injunction seeking for the following reliefs:
(a) Restraining the defendant from denying access to the plaintiffs,
their customers and their vehicles from passing through the 30 feet
passage leading to Harrington road and;
(b) For a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove
the wicket gate and also the construction materials put up on the 30 feet
passage leading to Harrington road.
4. The 1st plaintiff is the tenant under the 3rd plaintiff. The 2nd
plaintiff had purchased 3/5th portion of the land, the 3rd plaintiff had
purchased 2/5th portion of the land and both by way of the registered
documents on 30.09.2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
5. The defendant is having its property on Harrington road. They
put up a wicket gate on the southern end abutting the Harrington road on
11.03.2015 and thereby preventing the vehicles from entering the 30 feet
passage for reaching the 1st plaintiff's property. Since some construction
work was going on, the defendant also dumped the construction materials
in the passage. This resulted in preventing the customers of the 1st
plaintiff and the other tenants of the plaintiffs 2 & 3 to have free access.
Hence, they filed the suit. They sought for an interim order, pending the
suit, to restrain the defendant from denying access to them through the 30
feet passage to reach the Harrington road.
6. In the meantime, the other suit came to be filed in C.S.No.314 of
2012 over the same suit schedule property on the file of this Court. That
was filed by the Madras Christian College Association seeking for
declaration that it is the owner of the property and consequential relief of
injunction. When this matter came up before the trial Court on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
29.04.2015, an interim order was passed directing the parties to maintain
“status-quo”.
7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after coming to know of the
knowledge of the interim order, the petitioner/defendant closed the main
gate and dumped some more materials and was carrying on construction
activities in the 30 feet passage itself. Pleading this as violation of the
order, an application in I.A.No.8275 of 2015 was moved under Order
XXXIX Rule 2A of C.P.C.
8. The petitioner/defendant took a stand that they had erected two
grill gates on the entrance of the passage besides the wicket gate, but not
the main gate of the Bank premises. They would plead that in view of the
construction activities going on in the Church, which is adjacent to the
passage, they had stored the construction materials. After enquiry, the
trial Court passed an order in the form of an interim mandatory
injunction directing the petitioner/defendant to remove the lock put up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
over the main gate abutting the Harrington road and to ensure free
movement in the suit passage till the disposal of the suit.
9. This was challenged before the lower Appellate Court. The
lower Appellate Court considering the fact that the arrangement is only
interim injunction, did not interfere with the same. Against the
concurrent finding by the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court, the
present revisions have been preferred.
10. Heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum and Mr.M.Arunkumar, learned
counsel for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the entire
records.
11. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, would submit that much water has been
passed after the revisions have been admitted. Today, the suit filed before
this Court has been transferred to the City Civil Court and that both the
suits have been re-numbered and are pending in O.S.Nos.187 & 188 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
2020 before the VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. He would state
that pursuant to the order of this Court, access is being given to the
plaintiffs, but they are not being permitted to park their cars. He would
also submit that the 1st plaintiff has vacated the premises and therefore,
there is no cause of action with respect to the 1st plaintiff.
12. Mr.M.Arunkumar, would submit that he is not aware that the 1 st
plaintiff/TNSC Co-operative Bank has vacated the premises, but he did
not dispute the fact that access is now being granted to the plaintiffs 2 &
3/respondents 2 & 3 through the 30 feet passage.
13. In the light of the access having been granted to the parties to
use the 30 feet passage, there is no necessity to interfere with the order of
the trial Court as confirmed by the lower Appellate Court at this stage.
14. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, would also point out that the suits are
posted for framing of issues on 08.09.2023. Suffice to direct the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
VII Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, to take up the suits together for
disposal and pass orders on the claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.187 &
188 of 2020 on or before 28.02.2024.
15. With the above directions, both the Civil Revision Petitions are
disposed of. No costs.
28.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
kj
To
1. XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
3.The Tamil Nadu State Apex
Co-operative Bank Limited
Head Office at No.4, N.S.C.Bose Road
Chennai-600 001
Represented by its Deputy General Manager
Branch at: Old No.89, New No.40, Harrington Road
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031
Represented by its Chief Manager G.Kanraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Kj
C.R.P.(PD)Nos.2703 & 2704 of 2017
28.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
