Advocates:
['M/S A CHIDAMBARAM', 'S SAISHANKAR', '', 'V VELUCHAMY', 'FOR R AND R', 'R SIVAKUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

Friday, the Twenty Third day of March Two Thousand Eighteen

PRESENT

THE HON`BLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

CMP No.5367 of 2018

IN SA.71/2018

PARAMESWARI

[ PETITIONER ]

Vs

1 G. SELVARAJ

[ RESPONDENTS ]

2 R.P.S. MANI

3 TAMIL NADU SLUM CLEARANCE

BOARD, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,

KAMARAJAR SALAI, CHENNAI 5.

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein

and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased

to grant Interim Injunction restraing the Respondents 1 & 2, their

agents, servants, or anybody claming through under them form in any

manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

Plaint schedule suit property in O.S No.1391/2005 on the files of the

Learned XIIIth Asst.City Civil Judge, Chennai, and more particularly

mentioned in the Petition pending disposal of the Second Appeal

No.71/2018.

SCHEDULE

Plot No.25, Kambar Nagar, Ayyavoopuram, 10^th Sector, 56^th

Street, K.K.Nagar, Chennai-600 078, measuring an extent of 56

Sq.Mtrs., situated within the Registration District of Chennai-South.

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the

petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing

the arguments of M/S.A.CHIDAMBARAM, Advocate for the petitioner and

of MR.R.SIVAKUMAR, Advocate for the 3^rd respondent and the 1 & 2

respondents not appearing either in person or by an advocate, the

court made the following order:-

The plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction is the

appellant herein. She claims to be in possession of the suit

property. The trial Court decreed the suit by granting a decree for

injunction. On appeal, the same was reversed. Hence the second appeal

has been preferred.

2. It is stated that pending the first appeal in A.S.No.37

of 2015, there was no suspension of the injunction. As there is a

threat of being dispossessed, the injunction application has been

filed. As the appellant claims to be in lawful possession and

enjoyment of the property, if she is disturbed and dispossessed, she

would be put to serious prejudice and untold hardship.

3. Though the name of the learned counsel for the caveator

has been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance.

4. As the petitioner has made out a prima facie case and

balance of convenience is in her favour, there shall be an order of

interim injunction for a period of four weeks.

-sd/-

23/03/2018

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. )

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO

1 THE REGISTRAR

CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI

C.C. to M/S.A.CHIDAMBARAM Advocate SR.NO. 3742

Order

in

CMP.5367/2018

in

SA.71/2018

Date :23/03/2018

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified

copies of the Interim Orders in this format

JK 28/03/18