2009 Supreme(Mad) 178

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
S.A. Rajendran Poosari
Versus
The Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department & Others
C.R.P.(PD).No.3634 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008
decided on 19-01-2009

Headnote:

Revision petition filed against the order of the trial Court granting ad-interim injunction till 011. 2008 in I.A.No.17871 of 2008 in O.S.No.7380 of 2008 passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in granting the relief of ad-interim injunction till 011. 2008. The revision petitioner/4th respondent/4th defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 210. 2008 in I.A.No.17871 of 2008 in O.S.No.7380 of 2008 passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in granting the relief of ad-interim injunction till 011. 2008 and ordered notice to respondent by then, etc. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.17871 of 2008 in O.S.No.7380 of 2008, has granted the relief of ad-interim injunction till 011. 2008 and ordered notice to respondent by then, etc. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in granting the relief of ad-interim injunction without assigning reasons are vitiated in law and that the trial Court should have been more cautious in interfering with the management of temple since the idol is a minor and its interest has to be safeguarded first and that the trial Court has erred in taking the suit to its file as the cause of action has arisen only in Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District and moreover, the trial Court has permitted the 4th respondent/petitioner/plaintiff to select a Court of his choice, which is against the principles of natural justice and that the order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction and in fact, a non-speaking order and further, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the suit and granting an exparte interim order, which is against the orders passed in the writ petition by this Court of Madurai Bench and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the 4th respondent/petitioner/ plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the orders passed in earlier proceedings and the trial Court has entertained the suit on presumptions and assumptions, detriment to the rights of the civil revision petitioner and therefore, prays for striking off the suit O.S.No.7380 of 2008 from the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

Fact of the Case:

The revision petitioner/4th respondent/4th defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 210. 2008 in I.A.No.17871 of 2008 in O.S.No.7380 of 2008 passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in granting the relief of ad-interim injunction till 011. 2008 and ordered notice to respondent by then, etc. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.17871 of 2008 in O.S.No.7380 of 2008, has granted the relief of ad-interim injunction till 011. 2008 and ordered notice to respondent by then, etc. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in granting the relief of ad-interim injunction without assigning reasons are vitiated in law and that the trial Court should have been more cautious in interfering with the management of temple since the idol is a minor and its interest has to be safeguarded first and that the trial Court has erred in taking the suit to its file as the cause of action has arisen only in Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District and moreover, the trial Court has permitted the 4th respondent/petitioner/plaintiff to select a Court of his choice, which is against the principles of natural justice and that the order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction and in fact, a non-speaking order and further, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the suit and granting an exparte interim order, which is against the orders passed in the writ petition by this Court of Madurai Bench and that the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the 4th respondent/petitioner/ plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the orders passed in earlier proceedings and the trial Court has entertained the suit on presumptions and assumptions, detriment to the rights of the civil revision petitioner and therefore, prays for striking off the suit O.S.No.7380 of 2008 from the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

Finding of the Court:

The Court, on the basis of equity, fairplay and on the principles of natural justice and even as per law, without going into the merits of the matter, directs the trial Court viz., VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the main suit O.S.No.7380 of 2008 as well as the I.A.No.17871 of 2008 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with the well settled principles of law (after being satisfied with the requirement of filing of written statement and the counter in IA by the concerned parties and also framing triable issues) and to report compliance to this Court and because of the fact that Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be sparingly resorted to by this Court, this Court opines that the revision petitioner cannot invoke the supervisory, discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India based on the overall assessment of the facts and cumulative circumstances of the case. Liberty is given to the revision petitioner to raise all factual and legal contentions before the trial Court including the plea of maintainability of suit on the point of jurisdiction in the manner known to law.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of the trial Court in granting the relief of ad-interim injunction without assigning reasons is vitiated in law? 2. Whether the trial Court should have been more cautious in interfering with the management of temple since the idol is a minor and its interest has to be safeguarded first? 3. Whether the trial Court erred in taking the suit to its file as the cause of action has arisen only in Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District? 4. Whether the trial Court has permitted the 4th respondent/petitioner/plaintiff to select a Court of his choice, which is against the principles of natural justice? 5. Whether the order of the trial Court is without jurisdiction and in fact, a non-speaking order? 6. Whether the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the suit and granting an exparte interim order, which is against the orders passed in the writ petition by this Court of Madurai Bench? 7. Whether the trial Court has not taken note of the fact that the 4th respondent/petitioner/ plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the orders passed in earlier proceedings? 8. Whether the trial Court has entertained the suit on presumptions and assumptions, detriment to the rights of the civil revision petitioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of assigning reasons for the grant of ad-interim injunction is a mandatory one. 2. A Court of Law has a duty to perform its obligations in rejecting the plaint hit by any of the infirmities under clause (a) to (d) of Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code even without the intervention of the defendant in the considered opinion of this Court. 3. The inclusion of cause of action is a requirement as per Order 7 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and not of Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. 4. Generally, the Court has to presume that every allegation in plaint is true. However, when the plaint raises arguable points the same may not be rejected in law. 5. Furthermore, if averments made in the plaint are documents relied upon discloses a cause of action, then plaint should not be rejected merely on the ground that the averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein. 6. No wonder, the Court can examine the parties to clear pleadings.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.