C.R.P.No.3216 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.(PD).No.3216 of 2019

and

C.M.P.Nos.3895 & 20951 of 2019

K.Kunhammad

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.T.R.Kanniappa Naidu

2.Alaiyappan

3.Raja

4.Ganesh

5.Narayana Bhoopathy

6.P.Balakrishnan

7.S.Indira

8.P.Ravi

9.Shanthi

10.Kandoth Ahmmed Haji

11.Mayan alias Mayal

12.Ashraf

13.Kandoth Abdul Gafoor

14.Jafar Kandoth

15.Harris Koodathan Kandiyil

16.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,

Thalamuthu Natarajan Malligai,

Egmore. Chennai-8.

Rep. By its Member Secretary.

Page No.1/9

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

C.R.P.No.3216 of 2019

17.Municipal Corporation of Chennai,

Rippon Buildings,

Chennai-3.

Rep. By its Commissioner.

18.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

NPKRR Maaligai,

No.800, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

Rep by its Chairman.

19.The Inspector of Police,

Thousand Lights Police Station,

Thousand Lights, Chennai.

.. Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, praying to set aside the order dated 27.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.57 of

2010 in O.S.No.7504 of 2010 on the file of the learned XVIII Additional

Session Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.B.Mohan

For Respondents

:

For R1 to R4

: M/s.Chennai Law Association

For R5 to R9

: No appearance

For R10 to R15

: Mr.V.Ezhilan

For R16

: Mr.Karthik Rajan

For R17

: Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok

Page No.2/9

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

C.R.P.No.3216 of 2019

ORDER

The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the learned XVIII

Additional Session Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dated 27.08.2019 in

I.A.No.57 of 2010 in O.S.No.7504 of 2010.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The revision petitioner herein is the 12^th defendant in the suit in

O.S.No.7504 of 2010 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai, wherein the plaintiffs / respondents 1 to 4 filed a suit for declaration,

mandatory injunction, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs

against the defendants.

4. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs also filed an

Interlocutory application in I.A.No.57 of 2010 in O.S.No.7504 of 2010 under

Order II Rule 2 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to file a separate suit

for possession, in respect of plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties against the

defendants 1 to 12. At the time of filing of IA, tentatively, the Court permitted

Page No.3/9

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

C.R.P.No.3216 of 2019

the said relief. Thereafter notice was issued to the defendants/ respondents

concerned.

5. In the original suit, the revision petitioner contested the suit, after

closure of the evidence. At the time of arguments, he came to know about the

alleged permission given in I.A.No.57 of 2010 without his knowledge. On

hearing his objection, the matter was re-opened and time was granted to file

his objection in I.A.No.57 of 2010. On hearing the objection, the learned trial

Judge allowed the said I.A. and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to such

relief. Aggrieved by the said order, the 12^th defendant / revision petitioner has

preferred this revision.

6. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner submitted that the reasons stated by the plaintiffs in IA.No.57 of

2010, that they are not having sufficient money to initiate the relief with

regard to the possession of the property which itself clearly indicated that they

are indigent person, for that, they are entitled to invoke Order II Rule 2 of

CPC. But, without considering this legal aspect, the learned trial Judge gave a

Page No.4/9

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

C.R.P.No.3216 of 2019

finding. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned trial

Judge.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that

the plaintiff