Madras High Court
G.Sreenivas vs M.Vaigai Selvan on 5 February, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2025:MHC:344
O.S.A.No.22 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
O.S.A.No.22 of 2025
and CMP No.2168 of 2025
G.Sreenivas
.. Appellant
vs
1. M.Vaigai Selvan
2. Mrs.Usha
Both residing at
Flat No.D-4, T.V.H. Boag Villa, No.52/54,
North Boag Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 17.
G.Geethanjali (Deceased)
(Amended vide order dated 21.11.2024 in A.No.5547/2024)
.. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side
Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against fair and
decreetal order dated 09.01.2025 in A.No.2636 of 2024 in C.S.No.116 of
2024.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Harish Chowdhary
for Mr.T.M.Naidu and co.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
O.S.A.No.22 of 2025
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
This Original Side Appeal is filed challenging order dated
09.01.2025 passed in A.No.2636 of 2024. Two suits have been filed,
one in O.S.No.1511 of 2024 another in C.S.No.116 of 2024. The appellant
is the defendant in both the Suits.
2. The relief sought for in O.S.No.1511 of 2024 is as follows:
(a) To pass an order of permanent injunction restraining
the defendants their men, agents or any person authorized by
them from in any manner interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the
plaintiff except by due process of law.
(b) To direct defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of
Rs.21,00,000/- being the arrears of rent, TDS and other
payments to the plaintiff.
(c) To direct the defendants 1 & 2 to pay the damages
for the use and occupation of the suit schedule property at the
rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per month from the date of the plaint till
the date of vacating the suit schedule property.
3. The relief sought for in C.S.No.116 of 2024 is as follows:
(a) direct the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of
Rs.1,49,39,256/- (Rupees One Crore, Forty nine lakhs, thirty
nine thousand, two hundred and fifty six only) together with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint
till the date of realization.
(b) direct the defendants to pay the cost of this suit.
4. A.No.2636 of 2024 had been filed seeking attachment before
judgment as a consequence of the prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs.1.49
crores (approx.). The plea of the respondent was that the property at Door
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.1, Prakasam Street, T.Nagar, admeasuring 1600 sq.ft. in the first floor
and 900 sq.ft. in the 2nd floor, together admeasuring 2500 sq.ft. (in short
'subject premises') had been rented on monthly rent of Rs.60,000/-. A sum
of Rs.32.00 lakhs had been deposited as advance.
5. The applicant had managed a restaurant therein under the name
and style of 'Vaigai Chettinad Restaurant'. According to the applicant,
substantial expenditure had been incurred on making ready the place for
running of the restaurant and hence the prayer for a direction to the
appellant to remit the sum of Rs.1.49 crores in C.S.No.116 of 2024.
6. In the impugned order dated 09.01.2025, the learned Judge has
looked into the trajectory of facts that are relevant to the matter. In
paragraph 3, the learned Judge states that the parties to this OSA, along
with one Dea Foods, who is arrayed as defendant in O.S.No.1511 of 2024
had formed a tripartite agreement for managing the restaurant. The case of
the appellant is that the respondents in collision with said Dea Foods had
fraudulently deprived the appellant of possession and access to the subject
premises as well as of the improvements made to the subject premises
which have been quantified at Rs.1.49 crores.
7. We find that the learned Judge has appreciated the relevant facts
and rendered a prima facie finding that the subject property belonging to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the appellant has, indeed, been improved by the restaurant to make it
suitable for operating a restaurant. We have find nothing untoward in the
learned Judge directing the appellant to furnish security to the extent of the
aforesaid claim on or before 15.02.2025. Such a direction would only
serve to secure the interests of the parties pending disposal of the Suits.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
intends to offer the subject premises to lease to a third party. We do not
find that the direction to furnish security would in any way impede the
aforesaid arrangement.
9. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, we see no merit in this
Original Side Appeal and dismiss the same.
10. One thing remains. According to the appellant, he has filed an
application in A.No.90 of 2025 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 seeking rejection of plaint in C.S.No.116 of 2024.
11. Incidentally, we note that in impugned order dated 09.01.2025,
A.No.90 of 2025 is also mentioned as part of the cause title. This has led
to an apprehension on the part of the appellant that his application for
rejection of plaint in C.S.No.116 of 2024 has also been disposed under
order dated 09.01.2025.
12. We have carefully perused order dated 09.01.2025 and find no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mention therein of the plea for rejection of the plaint. Hence, we are of the
considered view that the apprehension of the appellant is misconceived.
13. Impugned order dated 09.01.2025 cannot thus be taken to be
disposing A.No.90 of 2025, as reference to A.No. 90 of 2025 in the cause
title is a technical error. No credence need be given to the same and we
clarify that A.No.90 of 2025 seeking rejection of plaint in C.S.No.116 of
2024 is yet pending before the learned Judge and may be pursued by the
parties.
14. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also
dismissed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K.,J]
05.02.2025
Index:No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes
sl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
sl
05.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
