IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10-03-2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN C.R.P.No.2356 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 Sivakumar .. Petitioner. Versus Padmanabhan .. Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the docket order, dated 27.6.2007, made in I.A.No.434 of 2007 in O.S.No.176 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif, Gudiyatham. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar For Respondent : Mr.K.A.Ravindran O R D E R This Civil Revision Petition had been filed against the docket order, dated 27.6.2007, made in I.A.No.434 of 2007, in O.S.No.176 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham. 2. The interlocutory application, in I.A.No.434 of 2007, had been filed by the plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.176 of 2007, praying for an order of interim mandatory injunction against the defendant therein to restore the pipe line, which is alleged to have been removed by the defendant. The suit, in O.S.No.176 of 2007, had been filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant therein from, in any way, disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the pipe line by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.401 of 2007, for an order of interim injunction to restrain the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the pipe line, by the plaintiff. In the said interlocutory application notice had been ordered, returnable by 27.3.2007. However, the trial Court had passed an order, dated 27.6.2007, in I.A.No.434 of 2007, directing the defendant to restore the pipe line, based on the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant had removed the same. No notice had been ordered to the defendant before the said order had been passed, on 27.6.2007. 4. The allegation of the plaintiff, who is the applicant in I.A.No.434 of 2007, is that the entire pipe line had been removed by the defendant, who is the respondent in the said application, on 23.6.2007, which is clear from the report filed by the advocate commissioner, who had inspected the property in question, on 13.6.2007. At the time of the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner only a portion of the pipe line had been removed. Thereafter, it was found that the entire pipe line had been removed by the defendant. In such circumstances, the trial Court had granted an order, dated 27.6.2007, directing the defendant, who is the petitioner in the present civil revision petition to restore the pipe line. 5. In view of the averments made on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that the trial Court had passed the order, dated 27.6.2007, in I.A.No.434 of 2007, directing the defendant to restore the pipe line, without issuing a notice to him. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the said order of the trial Court, dated 27.6.2007, is not sustainable in law. Hence, the order, dated 27.6.2007, made in I.A.No.434 of 2007, is set aside. The trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of the interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.401 and 434 of 2007, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving sufficient notice of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index:Yes/No 10-03-2010 Internet:Yes/No csh M.JAICHANDREN J. csh To 1. The District Munsif, Gudiyatham. C.R.P.No.2356 of 2007 10-03-2010