Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUBBIAH, J.
K. Srinivasa Rao
Versus
S. Narayanan & Others
Application No. 2639 of 2013 & Original Application Nos. 424 & 425 of 2013 & & Application Nos. 2558, 2559 & 2464 of 2013 & Application Nos. 2590 of 2013 in C.S. No. 382 of 2013
Decided On : 20-12-2013
The Court dismissed the application to reject the plaint and the application to vacate the interim injunction. The interim injunctions passed by the Court on 14.06.2013 in O.A.Nos.424 & 425 of 2013 were made absolute. Application Nos.2558 & 2559 of 2013 were also dismissed. Application No.2590 of 2013 filed to implead the proposed parties, was ordered as prayed for.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, who are eight in number, are the owners of their respective Flats in the building known as Vijay Apartments situated at Old No.5, New No.9, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. The defendant is the owner of the Flat No.G-1 on the Stilt Floor (i.e, Ground Floor vis-a-vis the building premises), a garage on the South East corner of the land along with the proportionate undivided share in the land, having purchased the same in the year 2003. From the time of purchase, the defendant has not been co-operating with the other residents of the building and he has been causing disturbance to the other residents. The defendant further used to dump junk and garbage on the southern and western sides of the building, thereby congesting the common areas. The plaintiffs had to repeatedly request the defendant to clear the same and not to indulge in such activities as the same was causing hindrance to the other residents of the building and blocking the common areas.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the defendant was attempting to interfere with the civil rights of the plaintiffs, who are entitled to live peacefully in their respective flats. The Court also found that the defendant had not obtained the necessary permission to run a restaurant in the subject building.
Issues: Whether the suit is barred under Section 9 of CPC since the issue raised in this suit is public interest in nature. Whether the suit is bad in law, since leave has not been obtained by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 8 of CPC to file the suit in representative capacity. Whether the suit is liable to be rejected under Order I Rule 9 of CPC, for mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties. Whether the suit is bad in law, since leave was not obtained under Order II Rule 3 of CPC for joinder of several cause of action. Whether the present suit has been filed by anticipating future nuisance. Whether the suit is hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, since no prayer for declaration was sought for by the plaintiffs. Whether the plaintiffs have no personal interest in the subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the suit was not barred under Section 9 of CPC since the issue raised in the suit was not public interest in nature. The Court also held that the suit was not bad in law, since leave had been obtained by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 8 of CPC to file the suit in representative capacity. The Court further held that the suit was not liable to be rejected under Order I Rule 9 of CPC, for mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary parties. The Court also held that the suit was not bad in law, since leave was not obtained under Order II Rule 3 of CPC for joinder of several cause of action. The Court further held that the present suit had not been filed by anticipating future nuisance. The Court also held that the suit was not hit by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, since no prayer for declaration was sought for by the plaintiffs. The Court further held that the plaintiffs had a personal interest in the subject matter.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the application to reject the plaint and the application to vacate the interim injunction. The interim injunctions passed by the Court on 14.06.2013 in O.A.Nos.424 & 425 of 2013 were made absolute. Application Nos.2558 & 2559 of 2013 were also dismissed. Application No.2590 of 2013 filed to implead the proposed parties, was ordered as prayed for.
R. Subbiah, J.
1. Application No.2639 of 2013 has been filed by the applicant/defendant seeking to reject the plaint under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VI Rule 16(c) of Civil Procedure Court r/w Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) of Civil Procedure Court, 1908.
2. Original Application No.424 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs praying for grant of Interim Injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, agents, representatives, assigns, tenants, lessees, persons and/or any one acting or claiming under or through him, from in any manner interfering with the applicants'/plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of the common areas of the building including the land on all the four sides of the building viz., Vijay Apartments, Old No.5, New No.9, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
3. Original Application No.425 of 2013 has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs praying for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, his men, agents, representatives, assigns, tenants, lessees, persons and/or any one acting or claiming under or through him from running a restaurant in the defendant's dwelling unit, viz., Flat No.G-1, Ground Floor, Vijay Apartments, Old No.5, New No.9, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
4. Since interim injunctions have been granted by this Court as prayed for in O.A.Nos.424 & 425 of 2013 by order dated 14.06.2013, the defendant has filed Application No.2464 of 2013 praying to vacate the said interim injunctions.
5. Application Nos.2558 & 2559 of 2013 have been filed by the applicant/plaintiffs seeking to punish the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of interim injunction dated 14.06.2013 passed by this Court in O.A.Nos.424 & 425 of 2013 respectively in C.S.No.382 of 2013.
6. Application No.2590 of 2013 has been filed by the plaintiff to implead the proposed parties as Defendants 2 & 3 in the suit in Civil Suit.No.382 of 2013.
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking in the suit.
8. Before dealing with all the applications referred above, it would be appropriate to extract the averments made in the plaint.
9. The averments in the plaint are as follows:-
9(a) The plaintiffs are eight in number. They are the owners of their respective Flats in the building known as Vijay Apartments situated at Old No.5, New No.9, Burkit Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Most of the Plaintiffs are second and third purchasers of their respective Flats and most of them are senior citizens. There are 12 dwelling units in the said building known as Vijay Apartments, which is a stilt + 4 Floor construction. There are 3 dwelling units each in the First, Second and Third Floors and 2 dwelling units in the Fourth Floor. There is one dwelling unit in the Stilt Floor (i.e., Ground Floor) and covered car parks are provided to some of the Flat Owners in the remaining Stilt Floor area. Those residents, who do not have a covered car parking area, utilize the open space around the building to park their vehicles. There is also a small room in the Stilt Floor (i.e., Ground Floor), owned by one of the plaintiffs.
9(b) The residential apartment building viz., Vijay Apartments was constructed by Mrs.M.R.C.Appa Rao, who owned the land measuring an extent of about 8,412 sq.ft (about 3 ½ grounds) on which the building stands. The then Corporation of Madras sanctioned the building plan for residential purpose only in the year 1981. The building is surrounded by common areas and pathways. The entire land, where the building is constructed, is enclosed by a compound wall. The access to the property is from Burkit Road, which is on the Northern side of the property. The defendant is the owner of the Flat No.G-1 on the Stilt Floor (i.e, Ground Floor vis-a-vis the building premises), a garage on the South East corner of the land along with the proportionate undivided share in the land, havin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
