A. Subramania Mudaliar vs V. G. Subramania Battar and 5 others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(Mad) 353

S.S.SUBRAMANI
A. Subramania Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
V. G. Subramania Battar and 5 others – Respondent

Advocates:
Mr.R.Santhanam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Y.K.Rajagopal, Advocate for
Respondents

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court held that an order permitting a commissioner to visit the property and submit a report remains valid even if a stay of proceedings is in operation (!) (!) .
The stay of a suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) does not preclude the court from passing interlocutory orders or taking measures necessary to keep the proceedings alive, such as appointing a commissioner or issuing injunctions (!) (!) (!) .
The purpose of Section 10 is to prevent the trial of suits where issues are substantially the same in two parallel proceedings, but it does not bar the court from dealing with interlocutory applications or other procedural steps (!) (!) .
Even during a stay, courts can entertain and decide interlocutory applications that are urgent or necessary for the preservation of rights or to prevent irreparable harm, such as orders for injunctions or attachment before judgment (!) (!) .
The interpretation of "trial" in the context of Section 10 does not encompass interlocutory measures or procedures that do not involve the full trial of the suit (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the authority to pass interlocutory orders remains intact during a stay of trial, and such orders are not affected by the stay (!) (!) .
The revision petition challenging the order allowing the commissioner to visit the property was dismissed, reaffirming that the lower court's order was valid despite the stay (!) .

Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or further assistance.

Judgment :

1. Defendant in O.S.No. 12 of 1995, on the file of District Magistrate-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, is the revision petitioner.

2. The suit was originally filed on the file of District Munsif’ s Court, Kovilpatti as O.S. No.10 of 1991 and subsequently, on the formation of new courts, it was transferred to Vilathikulam Munsif’ s Court and renumbered as O.S.No. 12 of 1995. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the property and to restrain the defendant from interfering with their possession.

3. It is admitted that there was an earlier suit filed by defendant as O.S. No.258 of 1985, on the file of District Munsifs Court, Kovilpatti, and a decree was passed in favour of petitioner herein. The matter was taken in second appeal before this Court in Second Appeal No.1693 of 1995, and the same is pending. In view of pendency of the second appeal, all proceedings have been stayed under Section 10, C.P.C. The reason for filing this revision is, an interim order was obtained by respondents herein from changing the nature of the property. Alleging violation of the interim order, they wanted to initiate contempt proceedings against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(Mad) 353

S.S.SUBRAMANIA. Subramania Mudaliar – AppellantVersusV. G. Subramania Battar and 5 others – Respondent

S.S.SUBRAMANI
A. Subramania Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
V. G. Subramania Battar and 5 others – Respondent