The Chief Justice.-This is an appeal against the order made by our learned brother Satyanarayana Rao on the 25th

May, 1948 as one of the vacation Judges during the summer recess of that year in the following circumstances.

The Srirangam Municipality which is the appellant before us, issued a notice to the respondent purporting to be under

section 182 of the Madras District Municipalities Act directing him to deliver possession of an extent of 30 cents of land

in T.S.No. 1513 on the northern and eastern side of T.S.No. 1509 and to remove the fence he had put up thereon on

the ground that the respondent had encroached on land belonging to the Municipality. This notice was served on the

respondent on the 25th February, 1948. He thereupon filed a suit O.S.No. 250 of 1948 in the Court of the District

Munsiff of Trichinopoly against the Municipality represented by its Commissioner for a declaration of his title to and for

the maintenance of his possession of the land in dispute. Along with the plaint he filed an application for an interim

injunction restraining the Commissioner of the Municipality From interfering with his possession pending disposal of the

suit. Notice of the application for interim injunction was ordered by the learned District Munsiff and it was served on the Commissioner on the 24th April, 1948. The petition itself was posted for hearing on the 12th June 1948, evidently because the Court of the District Munsiff was closed meanwhile for the summer recess. After receipt of this notice from the Court, the Commissioner had the fence and the trees on the disputed land cut out and removed on the 27th April, 1948. As the District Munsiff’s Court was closed, the respondent filed two applications to this Court. In C.M.P.No. 3114 of1948, he prayed that this Court may be pleased to transfer the suit to this Court and to retransfer the. same aftergranting him the necessary relief. In C.M.P.No. 3115 of 1948, he prayed for an order directing the Commissioner of the Municipality to put back the fence in its original state and to restore the status quo ante pending disposal of the suit.

Both the applications were disposed of finally by Satyanarayana Rao, J., on 25th May, 1948. He ordered a transfer of

the suit to the file of this Court and after hearing both sides, granted a mandatory injunction directing the Commissioner of the Municipality to restore the fence to a length of 355 feet within a period of ten days from the date of his order failing which the respondent herein was given liberty to move the Court to have the order carried out and to recover the cost of such execution from the defendant Municipality. As the petition for injunction had been disposed of and as it was unnecessary to keep the suit pending in this Court, the learned Judge retransferred it to the District Munsiff’s Court for disposal. The appeal before us is against the order granting the mandatory injunction.

Mr. V.V.Srinivasa Aiyangar for the appellant before dealing with the merits, raised certain objections to the

maintainability of the petitions before Satyanarayana Rao, J., and certain procedural defects in the applications. We may mention at the outset that none of these objections was raised before the learned Judge himself Some of the objections particularly those which were procedural, could have easily been met, if they had any substance, by appropriate amendments by the respondent We do not think it is open to the appellant to raise these objections for the first time in the appeal. However as the objections relate to matters of some general importance, especially to the practice now obtaining during the vacation of this Court, we shall briefly deal with the several points raised by him.

It was contended that the application for transfer must have been made to the Original Side of this Court by means of an Original Petition bearing the proper court fee The application was made under section 24 and 151, Civil Procedure

Code In the cause title the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document