1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD)(MD) No.1417 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 M.K.Gopal .. Petitioner / Plainaitf Vs. 1.R.Nagammal 2.R.Pandy 3.R.Chinnasamy 4.R.Murugan 5.R.Nagarajan .. Respondents / Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.04.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2011 in Original Suit No.85 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For Respondent : Mr.V.P.Rajan ORDER The order dated 18.04.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2011 in Original Suit No.85 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.85 of 2009 on the file of the Court below for getting a decree of perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2011 under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to make amendment in the plaint as set out in the petition. The Court below has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in Original Suit No.85 of 2009, the respondents/ defendants as petitioners have filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, wherein an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he inspected the suit property and filed his report and plan and in his report it has been stated that at the time of inspection, the respondents/defendants have handed over key of fencing and under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for intruding the relief of recovery of possession and the Court below without considering the nature of the relief sought for in the present petition has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be interfered with. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has contended that Original Suit No.85 of 2009 has been instituted for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the specific defence taken on the side of the respondents/defendants is that they are enjoying the suit property as tenants and under the said circumstances the present petition is not factually as well as legally maintainable and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below need not be set aside. 5. As stated earlier, Original Suit No.85 of 2009 has been instituted for the relief of perpetual injunction. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein. In fact, this Court has perused the entire averments made in Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2011, wherein it has been simply stated that the Advocate Commissioner has stated in his report that the defendants have handed over the concerned key. Only on that basis, the present petition has been filed for the relief sought for therein. The specific stand taken on the side of the revision petitioner is that the concerned key is with him. Under the said circumstances, the present petition is totally unwarranted and further the specific issues to be settled in the present case are as to whether the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property as absolute owner or the defendants have been enjoying the suit property as tenants of the same? 6. The Court below after considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.85 of 2009 as well as the nature of the stand taken on either side has rightly dismissed Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2011 and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.40 of 2011 in Original Suit No.85 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Records) / True copy / Sub Assistant Registrar. smn To The Principal District Munsif, Manamadurai. Sb 2/11/2011 2p 2c C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1417 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/