The court emphasized the importance of considering the violation of injunction orders and applying legal precedents correctly in property dispute cases.

Inveighing the order dated 112. 2005 passed in I.A.No.16570 of 2005 in I.A.No.7993 of 2003 in O.S.No.2047 of 2003 passed by the 16th Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. A resume of facts, which are absolute necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition, would run thus:-

The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.2047 of 2003 seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants herein, their men, assigns, agents or anybody claiming through them from putting up any further construction by encroaching plot (tenament No.109) belonging to the plaintiffs of an extent of 100.0 sq.ft.(or) 1076 sq.ft.) in VOC Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81, morefully set out in the schedule hereunder.

(ii) to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants herein to remove the illegally erected cement concrete two pillars in the plaintiffs tenament area by encroaching the one foot service lane left by the plaintiffs on the western side of their house in plot/tenament No.109, VOC Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai-81, more fully set out in the schedule here under."

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.7993 of 2003 and obtained an order of interim injunction, so as to restrain the defendants from proceeding further with the construction in the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, even thereafter, in violation of the injunction order, the defendants raised construction, obstructing the air and light to the plaintiffs building. Whereupon I.A.No.16570 of 2005 was filed seeking amendment of the plaint:

"(i) Para 9(a) the plaintiffs submit that after granting interim injunction the respondents/defendants high handedly constructed the parent wall closely along the western side wall of the plaintiffs and because of such construction, the window on the western side measuring 4 x 4 on the southern corner is completely closed and the light and air enjoyed by us have been arrested. Therefore it has become essential for us to have the prayer suitably amended by asking for the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the entire illegal construction high handedly put by the defendants both before and after the grant of interim injunction."

(ii) In para 12(ii) after the words, plaintiffs tenament area, to add the following:-

"and the illegal construction abutting the plaintiffs western side wall to a width of 15 cms and length of 14.30 mtrs."

Upon hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the application. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with, the said order of the lower Court, this revision is focussed by the plaintiffs on various grounds inter alia thus:

The lower Court committed error in not allowing the I.A. for amendment, which was one for incorporating the prayer for mandatory injunction, so as to demolish the additional construction made during the pendency of the suit.

3. Despite printing the names of both sides, no one appeared.

4. A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court and the typed set of papers would leave no doubt in the mind of the Court that the order of the lower Court is far from satisfactory and the lower Court also has mis applied the precedent of the Sikkim High Court reported in AIR 2005 Sikkim 1 – Karma Denka Bhutia And Another Vs. Sarki Lamu and Another appropriately.

5. The precedent referred to in the lower Courts order emerged relating to a title suit and in the facts and circumstances of that case, according to the learned Judge of Sikkim High Court, the doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable and that even without deciding the fact relating to construction, the title to the property could be decided. As such, it is obvious and axiomatic that the ratio decidendi of that precedent is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

6. Here it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the suit and that too, in violation of