Advocates:
ARPUTHAM ARUNA AND CO

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

PETITIONER:

A. VENKATASUBBIAH NAIDU

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

S. CHELLAPPAN AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/09/2000

BENCH:

K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J.

Leave granted.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

When a plaintiff rushed to the civil court for an ex-

parte interim order of injunction against some of the

defendants and obtained it, those defendants rushed to the

High Court to get that order quashed. Both parties

succeeded in their respective endeavour and now both of them

accuse each other for the course adopted by the other. This

appeal is by special leave at the instance of the plaintiff.

The subject matter of the litigation is a property

bearing Door No.177 to 182 on the Big Street at Triplicane

in Madras (now Chennai). At this stage and in this appeal

it is unnecessary to narrate the facts pleaded by the

plaintiff in the plaint nor by the contesting first

defendant in answer thereto regarding the right to the suit

property. Suffice it to say that plaintiff claims to be a

lessee under one S. Alagu (who is arrayed as 6th defendant

in the suit) in respect of the property and on that strength

he claimed to be in possession of the property. He alleged

that the defendants 1 to 5 have been threatening to

dispossess him.

Appellant-plaintiff filed the suit on 25.6.1999 for a

decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1

to 5 from dispossessing him. Along with the institution of

the suit he moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) to

pass an ad interim injunction restraining respondents 1 to 5

or their men or agents, or their representatives or any

person claiming through them or under them from evicting the

petitioner from the suit property other than by due process

of law and to pass such further or other order or orders.

On 29.6.1999 the Assistant Judge of the City Civil

Court, Chennai passed the following ex-parte order on the

said application: Heard. Documents perused. Rental

receipt Document 11 to Document 47 proves that the

petitioner is the statutory tenant and prima facie

possession of the suit property. Though the property was

leased out by R.6 on the basis of mortgage document 3, the

petition is now in continuous possession of the property as

tenant. Hence the balance of convenience is in favour of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

the petitioner. In the interest of justice, it appears that

R.1 to R.5 are restrained from evicting the petitioner from

the suit property, except under due process of law. Notice

by 25.8.99. Ad interim injunction till then. Order 39 Rule

3 to be complied with."

The first respondent, on behalf of himself and

respondent Nos.2 to 5, filed a revision petition invoking

Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of

Madras alleging that they purchased the property from the

owners thereof as per different sale documents executed on

15.3.1996, and they were in possession and enjoyment of the

property. They further alleged that one Ranganathan, MLA

and one Hithayatullah together expressed a wish to purchase

the property from the respondents, but it was not agreed to

and then those two persons exerted threat and pressure on

them to capitulate to their demand. As they did not yield

to such threats a suit was filed in 1998 by some parties who

are now supporting the present plaintiff. The respondents

further alleged that the said suit was filed at the instance

and instigation of those two named persons. When they

failed to get any relief therefrom another suit was caused

to be filed through one M. Devasinghamani on the strength

of some concocted documents. As no relief was obtained in