C O M M O N O R D E R

The Revision Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and he filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Sub-Judge, Chenglepet against the respondents/defendants for the relief of permanent injunction directing the defendants not to alienate or encumber the suit schedule property in adverse to the interest of plaintiff as per the Memorandum of Understanding and letter dated 14.02.2015 and for granting mandatory direction directing the defendants 1 to 6 to produce and hand over the custody of original Memorandum of Understanding lying in the joint custody in the safety locker of the 7th defendant Bank.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per the ranking in the suit.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the Interlocutary Applications as follows :-

a) I.A.Nos. 78 of 2018 was filed seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and note down the physical features, measure the same with the help of Taluk Surveyor and file a report.

b) I.A.No.79 of 2018 was filed under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. to grant leave to the plaintiff to file a separate suit for the reliefs other than those prayed for in the present suit.

c) I.A.No. 80 of 2018 was filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. to appoint an advocate commissioner to visit the office of 7th defendant to inspect the joint locker of petitioner and 2nd respondent for the purpose of inspection of original Memorandum of Understanding in the presence of parties, take copy of the same and produce before this court d) Another I.A.No.80 of 2018 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. to pass an order of interim injunction not to encumber the property.

e) I.A.No. 2 of 2022 in I.A.No.81 of 2018 was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of C.P.C. to permit him to file the additional documents morefully described in the Schedule.

f) I.A.No.3 of 2022 in I.A.No. 81 of 2018 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. to grant an order of status quo in continuation of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 2535 of 2020 till the disposal of I.A.No.81 of 2018.

All these applications are objected by the defendants by filing their counter objections. The Trial Judge heard all the applications and passed a common order. Accordingly, the application to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect and measure suit property in I.A.No. 78 of 2018 was dismissed as there is no necessity to visit the property and note down physical features for the reason that the issue involved in the suit is with regard to the involvement of Memorandum of Understanding. So, there is no necessity to appoint an advocate commissioner.

4. The Interlocutary Application in I.A.No.79 of 2018 was filed seeking to grant leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C. to file a separate suit for reliefs other than those mentioned in the present suit was dismissed holding that proper reason was not assigned nor stated the other reliefs going to claim by the plaintiff in future, without which a blanket permission cannot be given.

5. The Interlocutary Application in I.A.No.80 of 2018 was filed seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to inspect the original Memorandum of Understanding kept in bank locker of 7th defendant and to take copy of the same also dismissed holding that the main issue with regard to the said original document, mandatory injunction was prayed. So, there is no necessity to visit and take copy of the same as the parties have admitted the document, thereby the relief was not granted in favour of plaintiff. 6. The Interlocutary Application in I.A.No. 81 of 2018 was allowed by granting status quo order till the disposal of suit.

7. The Interlocutary Application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 filed seeking to receive additional document was allowed. I.A.No.3 of 2022 was closed. In respect of I.A.No.3 of 2022, in view of order passed in I.A.No. 81 of 2018, it was disposed of. Aggrieved over the common order passed