SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 470

P.SATHASIVAM
A. R. Ponnusamy – Appellant
Versus
Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. M. Venkatachalapathy, Senior counsel. For the Respondents:Mr. K. Yamunan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue raised in both the Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Defendant in O.S.No. 516 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, aggrieved by the order dated 12-4-2002 passed in the suit, holding that the District Munsif's Court has jurisdiction to try the issue raised, has filed C.R.P.No. 797/2002 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The very same petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the same Court dated 26-8-2002 in I.A.No. 874/99 in O.S.No. 516/99, granting injunction and continuing the same without taking up the injunction application, has filed C.R.P.No. 1751/2002 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. According to the plaintiff/respondent herein, he filed a suit in O.S.No. 516 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal, against the defendant/petitioner herein for permanent injunction, restraining him (defendant/petitioner herein) from carrying on the business of stone crushing by using the stone Crushers in S.No.204/4A of Marurpatty village. In the said suit, the respondent contended that if the petitioner operates the cr













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top