Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 4243
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. KARUPPIAH, J.
Chennai Vanniakula Kshatriya Maha Sangam & Another
Versus
Pon. Ramachandran
C.R.P(NPD)No. 1037 of 2008
Decided On : 26-11-2014
For the Petitioners: P. Wilson, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent:N. Sathiamoorthi, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code - Order 9 - Rule 9 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Consequential relief of injunction - Seeking for return of documents – Jurisdiction - Petitioners plaintiffs referred as revision petitioner since arrayed as plaintiffs 1 and 2 in capacity as President and also individual capacity - Respondent in the above said defendant referred as respondent hereafter – Admittedly revision petitioner as President and also individual capacity filed a suit and seeking two reliefs for declaration to declare second revision petitioner is President of first revision petitioners for consequential relief of injunction restraining respondent not to interfere in revision petitioners administration and management of above said - At time of filing above said suit revision petitioner also filed an application for interim injunction and trial court has granted interim injunction - Challenging above said interim injunction order respondent filed an application to vacate interim injunction – But trial court confirmed interim injunction granted and dismissed application - Aggrieved over said orders two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals respectively have been preferred - Appellate Court allowed both appeals by reversing orders of trial court - Aggrieved over above said common judgment rendered by Appellate Court revision petitioner preferred two Civil Revision Petitions before this Court - This Court on hearing both sides passed a common order – Held, A careful reading of relevant provisions of Order 9 Rule 9 Order 43 Rule 1(c) and Section 141 of Code of Civil Procedure revealed that as against order of allowing application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure by trial court appeal is not maintainable as rightly pointed out by counsel appearing for revision petitioner – But in instant case challenging order passed in above said filed by revision petitioner respondent herein preferred an appeal - In above said proceedings revision petitioner has appeared through counsel and only on hearing both side counsels submissions appellate court has pronounced judgment - During pendency of above said appeal revision petitioner has not raised question of jurisdiction before appellate court – Further revision petitioner filed this revision petition before this Court and same is pending for more than six years before this Court - Revision petitioner has not at all stated above said ground in revision petition as appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide dispute and on that ground findings of appellate court is to be set aside – Further revision petitioner has not filed any additional ground challenging question of jurisdiction of appellate court during pendency of civil revision petition also - Only at time of arguments before this Court raised above said question of jurisdiction - From above said facts revealed that both sides accepted jurisdiction of appellate court and submitted rival contentions and on hearing both side contentions appellate court has given findings - As already discussed revision petitioner has not challenged above said finding in revision petition - Further if revision petition is allowed necessary opportunity to be given to respondent to withdraw appeal from appellate court and permission is to be given to respondent to present before concerned court - If such permission is granted then proceedings will be delayed further - As rightly pointed out by counsel appearing for respondent only with an intention to prolong proceedings revision petitioner raised above said question only at time of arguments without any pleadings - As already discussed all contentions raised by revision petitioner cannot be accepted since there is no merits in above said contentions - Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioners challenging the decree and judgment passed by III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A.No.106 of 2007 wherein, reversing the order passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.7879 of 2007 in O.S.No.7834 of 2000.
2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in I.A.No.7879 of 2007 / plaintiffs referred as revision petitioner since only Mr. U.Balaraman arrayed as plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the capacity as President of Sangam and also individual capacity. The respondent in the above said I.A.No.7879 of 2007 / defendant referred as respondent hereafter.
3. Admittedly, the revision petitioner as President of Sangam and also individual capacity filed a suit in O.S.No.7834 of 2000 on 13.12.2000 and seeking two reliefs (i.e.) a) for declaration, to declare the second revision petitioner is the President of the first revision petitioner's Sangam (i.e.) Chennai Vanniakula Kshatriya Maha Sangam, b) for consequential relief of injunction restraining the respondent, not to interfere in the revision petitioner's administration and management of the above said Sangam. At the time of filing the above said suit, the revision petitioner also filed an application in I.A.No.21174 of 2000 for interim injunction and the trial court has granted interim injunction. Challenging the above said interim injunction order, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.2493 of 2001 to vacate the interim injunction. But, the trial court confirmed the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.21174 of 2000 and dismissed the application in I.A.No.2493 of 2001. Aggrieved over the said orders, two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.119 of 2002 and 77 of 2001 respectively have been preferred. The Appellate Court allowed both the appeals by reversing the orders of the trial court. Aggrieved over the above said common judgment rendered by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner preferred two Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(PD).Nos.723 and 724 of 2007 before this Court. This Court on hearing both sides passed a common order on 09.03.2007 as follows:-
''6. In the above circumstances, status quo is hereby ordered to be maintained, with a direction to the learned VIII Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to try the suit in day to day basis and dispose the same on or before 26.04.2007. The parties are directed to co-operate with the trial court in conducting the trial, without filing any vexatious petitions to drag on the proceedings.''
4. From the records it is also revealed that as directed by this Court, the trial court has taken up the case for hearing on 29.03.2007 and the revision petitioner (Mr. U.Balaraman) appeared before Trial court but seeking time for filing proof affidavit for chief examination. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 03.04.2007 for filing proof affidavit of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed a proof affidavit for chief examination on 03.04.2007, in which the revision petitioner had shown about 29 documents as Exhibits. Out of 29 documents, 18 documents are xerox copies, which were already filed along with plaint, the other documents No.19 to 29 shown in the proof affidavit not produced along with proof affidavit and also not filed any application to receive the above said documents as additional documents. The trial court adjourned the case to 13.04.2007 for production of the documents. In the meantime, the revision petitioner filed a memo before V Fast Tract Court only on 09.04.2007 for return of documents, but, the above said court directed the petitioner to file proper affidavit and petition. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed a petition only on 10.04.2007 vide CMP No.18 of 2007 seeking for return of documents. The revision petitioner has also not pursue the above said proceedings before V Fast Tract Court to return back the documents. In the meantime, the trial court adjourned the cas
