Eswari vs M.Muthu Bava Kalifullah
2023 Latest Caselaw 8896 Mad

                                                                                  C.R.P.(PD)No.4055 of 2016



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 24.07.2023

                                                            CORAM :

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                                  C.R.P.(PD)No.4055 of 2016

                     Eswari                                                            .. Petitioner

                                                                vs

                     M.Muthu Bava Kalifullah                                           .. Respondent


                                  Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against

                     the fair order and decreetal dated 08.06.2016 in I.A.No.240 of 2016 in

                     O.S.No.211 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam.

                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.K.Mukund Rao

                                        For Respondent      : Mr.P.Valliappan

                                                           ORDER

The petitioner seeks to revise the order passed in I.A.No.240 of

2016 in O.S.No.211 of 2010. The said application was filed seeking for

stay of the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.211 of 2010, pending

disposal of O.S.No.201 of 2010. O.S.No.211 of 2010 had been filed for

partition and for a declaration that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(PD)No.4055 of 2016

of 2001 dated 10.05.2002 is invalid and for specific performance of an

agreement of sale which had been executed by the defendants. The issues

in both the suits are different and therefore, the application was dismissed

by the trial Court.

2.I find no reason to interfere as the learned Judge has correctly

appreciated the position of law, as the issues in a partition suit are

different from the issues in a specific performance suit. He has rightly

declined to grant stay. Further, it is an exercise of discretionary power

which unless and until is capricious or arbitrary, need not be interfered

within a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I do not

find the order to be capricious or arbitrary. Therefore, I am decline to

interfere exercising revisional jurisdiction. This civil revision petition is

dismissed. No costs.

                                                                                          24.07.2023
                     Index:Yes/No                                                            (2/2)

Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No vs

To

The Sub Court, Sathyamangalam .

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.4055 of 2016

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

vs

C.R.P.(PD)No.4055 of 2016

24.07.2023

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