JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in CRP.2105 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Petition and Order dated 06.06.2019 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi.

Prayer in CRP.2106 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.167 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi.)

1. In C.R.P.(PD).No.2105 of 2019, the revision petitioner seek to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.167 of 2019 on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi, by order dated 06.06.2019.

In C.R.P.(PD).No.2106 of 2019 is concerned, the prayer sought for in the said revision is to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.167 of 2019.

2. In both the revision petitions, today C.M.P.Nos.23268 and 23270 of 2019 respectively have been filed to raise additional grounds.

3. However, with the consent of both sides, arguments were heard from the learned counsel appearing for both sides, in the main Civil Revision Petitions themselves and accordingly, these two Civil Revision Petitions are disposed off by this Common Order.

4. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that, the revision petitioner wanted to erect the cellphone tower in the neighbouring land of the respondents. As against the said move, it seems that, the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for injunction, where an interlocutory application I.A.No.2 of 2019 was moved, where interim order of injunction has been granted. Therefore, as against the grant of interim order of injunction by the trial Court restraining the revision petitioner from erecting the cellphone tower, the first revision has been filed.

5. Insofar as the second revision is concerned, it is the case of the revision petitioner that, since an erection of the cellphone tower is an infrastructure project, therefore, such kind of infrastructure project cannot be curtailed by a Civil Court by granting prohibitory injunction, in view of the prohibition expressed under Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act. Therefore, on that ground, the suit itself is barred by law. Therefore, in order to strike off the plaint, the second revision has been filed.

6. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon Section 20A of the Specific Relief Act, which reads thus:

"20A. Special provisions for contract relating to infrastructure project.—(1) No injunction shall be granted by a court in a suit under this Act involving a contract relating to an infrastructure project specified in the Schedule, where granting injunction would cause impediment or delay in the progress or completion of such infrastructure project.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, section 20B and clause (ha) of section 41, the expression “infrastructure project” means the category of projects and infrastructure Sub-Sectors specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Central Government may, depending upon the requirement for development of infrastructure projects, and if it considers necessary or expedient to do so, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule relating to any Category of projects or Infrastructure Sub-Sectors.

(3) Every notification issued under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of