C.R.P(MD).No.901 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 11.04.2023

Pronounced on : 13.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.R.P(MD).No.901 of 2023

1.Mohan

2.Manoharan

3.Mathavan

4.Mahendran

... Petitioners/Petitioners/Petitioners/

Defendants 1 to 4

Vs.

1.Dinakaran

2.V.K.Valasekar

3.V.K.Ramesh

4.V.K.Mathiprakasam

5.Prince Jebaraj

6.Devadoss

... Respondents/Respondents/Respondents/

Plaintiffs

PRAYER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of

CPC, to call for the records and set aside the fair and decreetal order dated

19.12.2022 in EP.No.19 of 2021 in IA.No.874 of 2018 in O.S.No.489 of

2015 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi.

For petitioners : Mr.S.Selva Aditya

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).No.901 of 2023

ORDER

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, dated

19.12.2022, passed in E.P.No.19 of 2021 by learned Principal District

Munsif, Thoothukudi.

2. By the impugned order dated 19.12.2022, the learned Principal

District Munsif, Thoothukudi, has dismissed E.P.No.19 of 2021. The relevant

portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“nkw;brhd;d Kd;jPh;g;g[ tHpfhl;Ljypd; goa[k; ,k;kD

bghUz;ikfis bghUj;jp ghh;f;FknghJ mry; tHf;F nky;

elj;jg;glhky; tplg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; ,ilepiy kDf;fSk;

Kotpw;F te;Jtpl;ld. Mjyhy;> mry; tHf;fpd;

K:yk; ,e;j kDjhuh;fspd; chpikfs; ,Wjpahf cWjp

bra;ag;glhj epiyapy; ,ilepiy kDtpy; cs;s cj;juit

epiwntw;wk; bra;a kDjhuh;fs; nfhUtJ Vw;g[ilajy;y vd

,e;ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpf;fpd;wJ.

Kothf>

,k;kDthdJ

js;Sgo

bra;J

cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

kDtpd;

jd;ikia

fUjp

bryt[ bjhif ,y;iy.'

3. The petitioners were the defendants before the Principal District

Munsif, Thoothukudi, in O.S.No.489 of 2015, filed by the respondents. The

respondents have filed the above suit for permanent injunction to restrain the

petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property. It

appears that the respondents were putting up constructions and therefore, the

said Court had ordered status quo to be maintained on 14.08.2018 in I.A.No.

405 of 2018.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).No.901 of 2023

4. It is submitted by the petitioners that despite status quo being

ordered, respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.No.489 of 2015, continued to put up

construction. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file I.A.No.874 of

2018 to restore the status quo.

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that I.A.No.874 of 2018 was

ordered in their favour by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi,

on 24.09.2018 to remove the encroachments. It is further submitted that after

the aforesaid order was passed, the respondents eventually withdrew the suit

as not pressed on 24.01.2020. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

6. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed E.P.No.19 of 2021 to

implement the order, dated 24.09.2018 passed in I.A.No.874 of 2018 filed by

the petitioners. It is submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed

the application.

7. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to

the relief of execution of proceedings under Order 21 of CPC till the

implementation of the interim order passed pending the suit, which has been

subsequently dismissed on 24.01.2020.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P(MD).No.901 of 2023

8. In support of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the

petitioners has placed reliance on Order 21 Rule 32(1) of CPC, which reads

as under:-

''32.Decree for specific performance for restitution of

conjugal rights, or for an injunction:-

1.Where the party against whom a decree for the specific

performance of a contract, or for restituion of conjugal rights,

or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity

of obeying the decree and has willfully failed to obe