Madras High Court
Nakoda Homes Pvt. Ltd vs Thirupparankundram Arumuga on 7 February, 2023
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.1352 of 2023
Nakoda Homes Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. through its Partner
S.Bhawarlal ... 1st Petitioner
R.Shanmuganathan (died) ... 2nd Petitioner
versus
1. Thirupparankundram Arumuga
Nainar Trust,
Rep. through its Trustees S.Venugopal
S/o. Late Somasundaram Chettiar,
D.No.13/5, Ismailpuram 8th Street,
Munichalai Road, Madurai – 625 009.
2. Thirupparankundram Arumuga
Nainar Trust,
Rep. through its Trustees
T.A.S.Ramasubramanian,
S/o. Late Subramania Chettiar,
D.No.534/1-A, Santhi Nagar 22nd Street,
Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
3. Thirupparankundram Arumuga
Nainar Trust,
Rep. through its Trustees
S.Durga Balakumar,
S/o. Late Somasundaram Chettiar,
D.No.6/1, Thennagaram,
Jaihindupuram,
Madurai – 625 011. ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, against the order dated 24.01.2023 made in I.A.No.22 of 2023
in A.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Court,
Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order dated
24.01.2023 made in I.A.No.22 of 2023 in A.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file
of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.976 of
2013 before the Additional District Munsif, Madurai, for the relief of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
declaration and also for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed
in favour of the plaintiffs, by Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2021.
As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal suit before the II
Additional Sub Court, Madurai, in A.S.No.35 of 2021. The petitioner
has also filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.22 of 2023 praying
to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.93 of 2021 in O.S.No.976 of
2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, till
the disposal of the appeal. The First Appellate Court, by its fair and
decreetal order dated 24.01.2023, rejected the said application on the
ground that it has been filed belatedly and not filed along with the
appeal. As against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is
filed.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
in the absence of any interim order in the appeal, the
respondents/plaintiffs are disturbing the petitioner's possession and
enjoyment of the property. He further submits that the petitioner is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
having a good case in the Appeal Suit and therefore, the First Appellate
Court, having entertained the Appeal Suit, ought to have granted
interim relief of stay in favour of the petitioner/appellant. In support of
his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pabbathi
Venkataramaiah Chetty vs. Pabbathi N.Rathnamaiah Chetty and
others, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 151, wherein, it has been held as
follows:
“5. ...... The learned counsel for the appellant
submits that he is in possession of the suit premises and
his prayer was for interim stay of dispossession as he is
running a lodge and an order of stay of demolition will
not, therefore, protect his rights, pending appeal. On the
other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent
submitted that the appellant has been enjoying the suit
premises and though the first respondent is entitled to
two-third share therein, he has been kept out of
possession and he is also not receiving any income
therefrom. It is not in dispute that the appellant is
running a lodge in the suit premises. The appeal against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
final decree filed before the High Court may become
infructuous if stay of dispossession is not granted. But,
at the same time, the interests of the first respondent
require to be protected. ....”
4. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the materials
available on record.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an appeal suit in
A.S.No.35 of 2021 as against the Judgment and Decree dated
29.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.976 of 2013 and the same is pending for
the purpose of impleading the legal heirs of the deceased second
respondent.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is having a good case in the appeal suit and also ready to
get along with the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision
Petition with a direction to the First Appellate Court to dispose of the
appeal suit in A.S.No.35 of 2021.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a
direction to the First Appellate Court, namely, the II Additional Sub
Court, Madurai, to dispose of the appeal suit in A.S.No.35 of 2021,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Till such time, status quo as on date to be maintained by the
parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
07.02.2023
ogy
NCC : Yes / No.
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
Note: Issue order copy on 08.02.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
To
1. The II Additional Sub Court,
Madurai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
CRP(PD)(MD)No.284 of 2023
07.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
