Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 2552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
J.Krishna Kumar Mundhra - Appellant
Versus
J.Shyamdev Mudhra - Respondent
C.M.A.Nos.1150 & 1151 of 2023 and CMP.Nos.11141 & 11142 of 2023
Decided on : 19-10-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.P.Krishnan
For the Respondent:Mr.N.Muralikumaran, Senior Advocate M/s.McGan Law Firm
The High Court can entertain appeals from vacation court orders during recess under exceptional circumstances, provided it transfers such appeals to the appropriate court once regular operations resume.
Headnote:(A) City Civil Court Act, 1892 - Section 15(2-C) - Maintainability of appeals - Appellant, younger brother of respondent, challenged an order dismissing his application to vacate an ex-parte injunction related to property possession; the court found the appeals maintainable before the High Court under exceptional circumstances and transferred them to the City Civil Court post-vacation. (Paras 6, 10, 16)
(B) Appeals - Jurisdiction - Appeals against vacation court orders cannot be heard by the same vacation court, necessitating transfer, thereby affirming procedural justice and the imperative for appropriate adjudication channels. (Paras 8, 11)
(C) Interlocutory Injunctions - Criteria for granting and vacating interim injunctions were central to the dispute; court emphasized on the need for maintaining competent judicial oversight and status quo. (Paras 10, 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis of jurisdiction and maintainability. (Para 3 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. ratio decidendi on the handling of vacation court appeals. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments regarding maintainability of appeals. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion directing transfer of appeals. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
The appellant in both the appeals is the younger brother of the respondent herein. He now challenges an order passed by the V Assistant City Civil Court dismissing I.A. No.5 of 2023 in O.S. No.3295 of 2023, which he had filed for vacating the order of ex-parte injunction granted in I.A. No.3 of 2023.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the current purpose, may be stated as below:
a) The suit property herein is a residential house in a plot measuring 2784.75 sq.ft. This property is stated to be part of a larger plot measuring more than 10,000 sq.ft. Claiming that the plaintiff is in possession of the said property, he had laid the present suit for bare injunction. The suit was laid on 03.05.2023 before the vacation court. Along with the suit, the plaintiff took out an interlocutory application in I.A. No.3 of 2023 for an order of interim prohibitory injunction against the defendant/appellant herein to protect his possession. That was granted by the trial court.
b) But, according to the defendant, he is in possession of the property.Now by virtue of the ex-parte order of injunction passed in I.A. No.3 of 2023, the plaintiff came to the property with several black and white clothed men and attempted to evict him forcibly from the property. According to him, the defendant cell-phonically called the police and the police too responded to the same and came to the scene of occurrence. However, the police could not prevent the plaintiff from taking forcible possession of the property based on the ex-parte interim order of injunction. Therefore, the defendant preferred a complaint, based on which a case was registered against the plaintiff/respondent herein and other unknown persons in Crime No.108 of 2023 on the file of Mambalam Police station for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 447 and 506(i) IPC.
c) In the following vacation court, the appellant herein took out I.A.No.5 of 2023 for vacating the ex-parte order of injunction. According to the defendant, the learned Vacation Judge was not keen to dispose of the same immediately, but ultimately he did hear both sides and dismissed the application filed by the defendant for vacating the injunction and made the order of interim injunction granted under I.A.No.3 of 2023 absolute.
d) Challenging this order, the defendant has come forward with these two appeals.
3. When the matter came up before the vacation court of this court, a learned single Judge of this court passed an order on 13.05.2023 in C.M.P. No.11141 of 2023, suspending the order of injunction granted in I.A. No.3 of 2023.
4. The plaintiff took up this matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.11163 of 2023 and that came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 30.05.2023 with a direction to the parties to preserve the status quo that was at the time when the SLP was disposed of. Indeed, the respondent herein raised the issue of maintainability of these appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has directed this court to decide the issue of maintainability. The operative portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads thus:
"Be that as it may, after hearing Mr.Muralikumaran and Mr.S.Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel of the two parties, we are of the opinion that since the appeal is pending before the High Court, it would be better that the appeal be decided expeditiously and, in the meanwhile, the parties shall maintain status quo as on date. With these observations, special leave petition is disposed of. In case the appeal is to be decided by the learned District Judge, then in t
