Madras High Court
R.M.Karuppaiah Chettiyar vs Mohamed Bilaldeen ...1St on 4 January, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 04.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5470 of 2022
1.R.M.Karuppaiah Chettiyar
2.K.R.Kannappan ... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2
Vs.
1.Mohamed Bilaldeen ...1st Respondent / Petitioner
2.N.Periyasamy
3.The Sub Registrar,
II – Sub Registrar Office,
Dindigul.
4.The State through represented
The District Collector,
The Collector Office,
Dindigul. ...Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 3 to 5
PRAYER :-
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order 43, Rule 1 ® of
CPC, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 11.01.2022 passed in
I.A.No.81 of 2021 in O.S.No.291 of 2021 on the file of the learned Fast Track
Mahila Judge, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R1 : Mr.R.R.Prithivi Raj
For R2 : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
For R3 & R4 : Mr.A.Ramesh
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 11.01.2022 passed in
I.A.No.81 of 2021 in O.S.No.291 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Mahila
Judge, Dindigul.
2.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order of the
lower Court granting interim injunction restraining the
respondents/defendants and their men, agent worker etc. from alienating the
suit property till the disposal of the suit.
3.The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the lower Court
has traversed beyond the scope of the application and has rendered its
findings touching the merits of the suit at the interim stage.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that the appellants in this appeal, who are defendants 1 & 2 in the suit, even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
before grant of injunction in the suit, alienated the property to the third
defendant. Therefore, if an order of interim injunction is not granted, the
appellants/defendants 1 and 2 may further alienate the property, which will
result in multiplicity of proceedings.
5.I have heard both side counsels and perused the judgment and decree
of the lower Court.
6.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
trial Court has traversed beyond the scope of the interim application and has
rendered findings on merits which is not permissible. On the other hand,
considering the conduct of the defendants and in order to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, it is necessary to injunct the appellant from alienating the
properties. The order of the learned judge, in so far as the interim order of
injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, i.e. the appellants, from
alienating the suit property in the pending suit is concerned, is confirmed.
But at the same time, it is made clear that the findings and observations made
by the learned Judge touching upon the merits of the case are eschewed and
the trial Court shall hear the case on merits without reference to the findings
recorded in the interim order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
7. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.01.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsd
To
1.The Fast Track Mahila Judge,
Dindigul.
2.The Sub Registrar,
II – Sub Registrar Office,
Dindigul.
3.The State through represented
The District Collector,
The Collector Office,
Dindigul.
4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
N.MALA, J
vsd
C.M.A(MD)No.637 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.5470 of 2022
04.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
