Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3015
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN
S.I. Thomas & Others
Versus
Balaraman & Others
C.R.P.(PD) No. 2531 of 2012 & M.P.No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 17-07-2012
For the Petitioners:V. Lakshminarayan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:G. Ethirajulu, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial Court's decision in not extending the interim order was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. - The court analyzed the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and found that the trial Court's decision in not extending the interim order was not in accordance with the provisions, and directed the trial Court to take up all the interlocutory applications together and decide the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to declare various registered sale deeds and registered Power of Attorney deeds as null and void and sought a permanent injunction restraining the 17th defendant from creating encumbrance, alienation, or alteration in respect of suit 'A' schedule property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court vacated the interim order granted, stating that the matter could be decided finally only after deciding the pending impleading petition and contempt petition. The Court found that the trial Court's decision in not extending the interim order was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.
Issues: The main issue was the trial Court's decision to not extend the interim order granted, and the necessity to hear all the defendants and decide the interlocutory applications together.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the trial Court's decision in not extending the interim order was not in accordance with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., and directed the trial Court to take up all the interlocutory applications together and decide the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to take up all the interlocutory applications together and decide the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on the date of the order.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against an order dated 26.04.2012 of the learned IV th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, made in I.A. No: 3302 of 2012 in O.S. No: 1269 of 2012. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and they filed a suit for declaration namely,
a. For declaration declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.1263 of 1980 dated 29.04.1980 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by 1st defendant in favour of 12th & 13th defendants in respect of "C" Schedule property as null and void.
b. For declaration declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.2492 of 1980 dated 31.07.1980 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by Singaram in favour of 11th defendant in respect of "B" Schedule property as null and void.
c. For declaratrion declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.440 of 1981 dated 17.02.1981 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by Ramachandran in favour of Saradha ammal in respect of "D" Schedule property as null and void.
d. For declaration declaring the settlement deed bearing Doc No.2223 of 1980 dated 25.07.1986 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by 12th and 13th defendants in favour of 14th defendant in respect of "C-1" Schedule property as null and void.
e. For declaration declaring the Power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.254 of 1995 dated 22.02.1995 registered in the office of SRO, Adyar, executed by 12th & 13th defendants in favour of 15th defendant in respect of "C-2" Schedule property as null and void.
f. For declaration declaring the Power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.255 of 1995 dated 22.02.1995 registered in the office of SRO, Adyar, executed by 12th & 13th defendants in favour of 15th defendant in respect of "C-3" Schedule property as null and void.
g. For declaration declaring the Power of Attorney bearing Doc.No.1035 of 1995 dated 05.07.1995 registered in the office of SRO, Adyar, executed by 12th & 13th defendants in favour of 14th defendant in respect of "C-1" Schedule property as null and void.
h. For declaration declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.5548 of 2006 dated 27.07.2006 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by 15th defendant as power agent of 12th to 15th defendants in favour of 17th defendant in respect of "C-4" Schedule property as null and void.
i. For declaration declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.1884 of 2007 dated 09.03.2007 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by 16th defendant as power agent of 11th defendant in favour of 17th defendant in respect of "B-1" Schedule property as null and void.
j. For declaration declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.1891 of 2007 dated 09.03.2007 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by 16th defendant as power agent of 11th defendant in favour of 17th defendant in respect of "B-2" Schedule property as null and void.
k. For declaration declaring the sale deed bearing Doc.No.2589 of 2007 dated 29.03.2007 registered in the office of SRO, Saidapet, executed by 15th defendant as power agent of 12th & 13th defendants in favour of 17th defendant in respect of "C-5" Schedule property as null and void.
l. For permanent injunction restraining the 17th defendant, his men, agents, servants or any body acting on his behalf from in any manner creating encumbrance alienation or alteration in respect of suit "A" schedule property.
2. Plaintiffs also filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The 17th respondent has filed his counter on 27.02.2012. The Trial Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim direction not to create any encumbrance or alienation or alteration in respect of "A" Schedule property and also directed that affidavit of service has to be filed on or before 08.03.2012. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up on 08.03.2012, 16.03.2012, 21.03.2012, 30.03.2012 and on 12.04.2012. On that day, I.A. No: 5955 of 2012 - an a
