A revision petition challenging an interim injunction is maintainable despite pending decisions, and an AGM resolution related to the petitioner should be deferred until the injunction application is resolved.

ORDER :

This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned XXI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.10 of 2024 in O.S.No.2093 of 2024 dated 12.12.2024.

2. The revision came up for maintainability before me. As I.A. No. 10 of 2024 is an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Office entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of the revision, as an appeal can be presented under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Ralph Manohar, relied upon a Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Subramanian in C.R.P.SR. Nos. 109971 and 111067 of 2021, dated 06-12-2021, whereby, the learned Judge had held that the Registry cannot raise an issue of maintainability of a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It was pointed out by the learned Judge that whether this Court entertains the revision or not, is a matter which has to be dealt with by it, on its judicial side and that it is not open to the Registry to question as to how a revision is being presented when an alternate remedy is available.

5. Apart from this Judgment, I have to point out that in order to prefer an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code, the order passed should be in the nature of an "Order" under Section 2(14) of the Code. Unless and until the order passed by the learned Trial Judge finally disposes of the injunction application, an appeal would not be maintainable. Since, I.A No. 10 of 2024 is still pending disposal before the Trial Court, I have to hold the revision is maintainable.

6.Respectfully following the above said judgment, I directed the Office to number the revision and post the matter for admission today.

7. I have heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned senior counsel for Mr.Ralph Manohar on behalf of the petitioner and Ms.S.Viji, the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The matter is on a very narrow campus. The plaintiff, who is the civil revision petitioner had presented a suit for damages, declaration and for prohibitory injunction as against the respondents. As the interim injunction application is still pending disposal before the learned XXI Additional City Civil Judge, it would not be appropriate for me to delve deep into the disputed facts presented before me.

9. Suffice it to say that the civil revision petitioner approached the National Green Tribunal, alleging that the environmental clearance granted to the Sewage Treatment Plant in the apartment complex situated in No.1167, Poonamallee High Road Koyambedu Chennai - 107 is improper. In the said proceedings, he had impleaded the 1^st respondent herein as a party to the proceedings. The 1^st respondent felt aggrieved that it had been impleded as a party. This is because the Executive Committee members of the 1^st respondent had already initiated proceedings against the builder before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Therefore, they felt that impleding the 1st respondent and its members is an unnecessary one.

10. As a result, they decided to invoke Clause 4.2 sub-clause (vii) of the by-laws of the 1st respondent Association and take action as against the civil revision petitioner. Being left with no other option, he filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Pending disposal of the suit, he took out an application for interim injunction to restrain the respondents herein from in any manner invoking Clause 4.2(i)(vii) of the by-laws against him.

11. The learned Trial Judge granted an order of injunction on 13-09-2024. Subsequently, the respon