Madras High Court
M/S. Aradhana Polymers vs J.Karthick on 5 September, 2024
C.R.P. No. 3076 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No. 3076 of 2024
M/s. Aradhana Polymers
Rep by its Managing Director
Pradeesh
2nd Cross Street, Ragavan Colony
Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600083. ... Petitioner / Defendant
Vs.
J.Karthick
S/o. S.Jayaprakasam ... Respondent / Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to direct the learned District Munsif Judge, Poonamalle
to expedite the hearing of O.S. No. 361 of 2022 pending on the file of the
learned District Munsif Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District.
For Petitioner : Mr. Thyagarajan
assisted by Ms.G.Sangeetha
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed for direction to the learned
District Munsif at Poonamallee to expedite the hearing of O.S. No. 361 of
2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. When the matter came up for admission, I called for a report from the
learned Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee on 06.08.2024. The learned
Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee has sent a report stating that P.W.1 is
yet to mark his side of documents and therefore not less than four months
would be required for disposal of the case. At this stage, Mr. Thyagarajan will
invite my attention to a memo that has been filed by the defendant in the said
suit. The memo reads as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. He would add that this memo was rejected by the learned District
Munsif on the ground that the suit is not infructuous, since the petitioner is yet
to take possession of the property. The e-Court proceedings read as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. I went through the plaint and found that the suit itself is for
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff
except otherwise in due process of law. Mr. Thyagarajan would submit that
the defendant never intended to take possession forcibly. On the contrary, he
has presented a petition for eviction in R.L.T.O.P. No. 16 of 2023 before the
learned Principal District Munsif cum Rent Court at Poonamallee. He adds
that the said R.L.T.O.P. was allowed on 12.12.2023. He states that the tenant
has not preferred any appeal against the said order.
5. When the relief in the suit itself is not to evict the tenant except
otherwise in accordance with law and when the landlord has initiated
proceedings for eviction, then it means that the landlord has submitted to the
jurisdiction of the courts and has not taken law into his own hands for the
purpose of eviction. When such plea of the position, there is nothing left for
adjudication in the suit.
6. Mr. Thyagarajan submits that his client will take possession of the
property only after obtaining appropriate orders from the Execution Court.
The said statement is placed on record.
7. In the light of the clear and specific statements of Mr. Thyagarajan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that R.L.T.O.P. proceedings have been initiated by the landlord and an
eviction order has been passed on 12.12.2023, I fail to understand what else
remains for adjudication in O.S. No. 361 of 2022. The suit on the face of it
infructuous. Consequently, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and others
reported in AIR 2004 SC 2093, the suit in O.S. No. 361 of 2022 has become
infructuous. The learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the suit recording this
order.
8. The statement of Mr. Thyagarajan that possession will be taken only
through process of the Court is reiterated. This will protect the interest of the
tenant.
9. With the above orders, the civil revision petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
05.09.2024
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
pal
To
The District Munsif Judge, Poonamalle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
pal
05.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
