1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.M.A(MD)No.289 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 R.Anbalagan ... Appellant/Plaintiff Vs. 1.Jothi Ram 2.Chellammal 3.M.N.Dilson 4.M.S.Mariappan 5.R.Mummoorthy ..Respondents 1 to 5/Defendants 6.V.Rani 7.A.Ramar ... Respondents 6 and 7 PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 41 Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C. against the order dated 21.06.2010 made in I.A.No.734 of 2008 in O.S.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Sessions Judge(F.T.C), Periyakulam. For Appellant : Mr.K.Guhan For R1 to R4 : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan For R5 : NDW For R6 & R7 : No Appearance JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents 1 to 4 are present. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 though duly served with notice, remained un-represented. As the fifth respondent was the power agent of the first respondent/original owner of the property and the power is subsequently admittedly cancelled, his presence is not necessary for the disposal of this appeal, notice is dispensed with for the fifth respondent. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.734 of 2008 in O.S.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Sessions Judge(F.T.C), Periyakulam, against the order rejecting the petition for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents 6 & 7 from carrying on construction of building work and getting water supply connection and other connection to the construction in question till the disposal of the suit. 3. The suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of the contract and for restraining the defendants 6 & 7 from alienating or encumbering the property in any manner and the suit reliefs are contested by the defendants by denying the existence of any valid sale agreement not only by the original owner, but also by the subsequent purchasers. The injunction sought for herein is against the subsequent purchasers who have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 been admittedly carrying on the construction work in the suit property I.A.No.734 of 2008 was filed during December, 2008 and the same was after serious contest disposed of on 21.06.2010 rejecting the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case and failed to prove his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence this appeal by the petitioner/plaintiff before this Court. 4. The perusal of the records reveals that the suit is filed during 2004 and thereafter transferred to other Court and re-numberd as O.S.No.21 of 2008 and though the trial was commenced much earlier during 2007, I.A.No.734 of 2008 came to be filed only during December, 2008 in the midst of trial and the same was after due contest dismissed. 5. I am of the considered view that the remedy available to the appellant herein is only to go and contest the suit and any construction carried on by either of the respondents in the suit property is only subject to outcome of the suit and in the event of the suit being decided in favour of the plaintiff, neither the original owner nor the subsequent purchaser are entitled to make any additional claim in respect of the construction put up during the pendency of the proceedings that too without the permission of the Court. 6. With this observation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of, however further direction is issued to the trial Court to complete the trial and dispose of O.S.No.21 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Additional District Judge cum Sessions Judge(F.T.C), Periyakulam. +1cc to Mr.K.Guhan, Advocate SR.No.12925 CMA(MD).No.289 of 2011 06.04.2011 pm PA/25.05.2011/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/