2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
M/S.SPACE TEXTILES P LTD – Appellant
Versus
B.A.KHIZER AHMED – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order
22.09.2021 25.10.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN C.R.P.(PD)No.184 of 2021 and CMP.No.1730 of 2021 Space Textile (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Mr. V. Vikram Narayan, D.No.966-972, Cross-cut road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore-641 012. ...Petitioner Versus
1. B.A. Khizer Ahmed 2. B.A. Yunus Saleem 3. B.A. Sultan Ahmed 4. B.A. Shiraz Ahmed
5. M/S. Alukkas Enterprises Pvt Ltd Rep. by its Managing Dirctor Mr.A.V. Jose, M.G.Road, Trichur, Kerala-680 001.
6. Jose
7. M/s.Affluent Promoters, a limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
D.No.54, Mettupalayam Road, G.N. Mill Post, Coimbatore-641 029 8. S. Martin, Designated Partnership M/s.Affluent Promoters, a limited Liability Partnership (LLP)
D.No.54, Mettupalayam Road, G.N. Mill Post, Coimbatore-641 029
9. Vedamuthu Vincent Anthonyaraj
10. Kuperapandian
11. R.Samiram
12. The Twon Planning Officer, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Big Bazar Street, Coimbatore-641 601
13. The Member Secretary, Coimbatore Local Planning Authority, Town and Country Planning Department, 1st floor, corporation Shopping Complex, Raju Naidu Street, Tatabad, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore-641 012. ...Respondents .
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.1496/2019 on file of the Learned First Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.Sathish Parasaran Senior Counsel for Mrs.S.Rathina Pravin Kumar For R1 to R4 : Mr.S.Krishnan For R7 to R9 : Mr.R.Sivamurali
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.1496 of 2019 on the file of the learned First Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
2. Suit in O.S.No.1496 of 2019 has a history from 1975. Respondents 1 to 4's father purchased the suit property in O.S.No.633 of 1975 from the heirs of one late Mr.C.S.Ramasamy Pillai. Mr.C.S.Ramasamy Pillai has left behind his wife and children. Minor children of deceased Mr.C.S.Ramasamy Pillai challenged the sale in favor of respondents 1 to 4's father Mr.Basheer Ahmed and sought for partition of their 4/11 share in the suit property.
3. Respondents 1 to 4's father was 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.No.633 of 1975 and contested the suit. Ultimately suit was decreed and preliminary decree was passed in favor of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.633 of 1975, declaring 4/11 share in the suit property after cancelling the sale deeds dated 15.04.1971, 03.04.1972, 20.11.1972, and 25.02.1974, executed by the 5th defendant in respect of the suit property. The respondents 1 to 4's father Mr.Bahseer Ahmed preferred an appeal in A.S.No.864 of 1979 on the file of this Court and the appeal was dismissed on 14.02.1986. Then, he filed LPA No.82 of 1987 before the Division Bench of this Court and that was also dismissed by this Court on 29.06.1987. Then the respondents 1 to 4 filed petition in I.A.No.682 of 1997 in O.S.No.633 of 1975 under Order XXVI Rule 13 & 14 and Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing final decree. When the final decree application is pending, the respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.227 of 2010 against respondents 5, 6, and 10, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the respondents, their men, agents and children from altering the physical features of the suit property, described in the schedule, either by putting up construction or otherwise and for mandatory injunction, directing the respondents 1 to 2 to remove the two name boards of Alukkas jewelery and steel angles and building materials put up by them in the suit property. This suit was filed for the reason that when final decree proceedings in I.A.No.682 of 1997 in O.S.No.633 of 1975 was pending, Mr.Kubera Pandian did not manage the property properly and began to induct tenants by receiving huge amounts without the permission of the Court and in violation of the Court Order. The respondents 5 and 6 represen