1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.93 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.S.Soosai Manickam ...Petitioner / I Defendant 2.Anthonyammal 3.Wilson Devaraj 4.Sesuraj 5.Maria Arockiam 6.Pelica Mary 7.Alees Regina Mary .. Revision Petitioners 2 to 7/ LRs of 2nd Defendant Vs. 1.Kamala Mary 2.Thiraviya Mary 3.Ranjitha Mary .. Respondents/Plaintiffs Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and executable order dated 16.08.2010 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2005 by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul confirming the fair and executable order dated 21.10.2005 passed in Interlocutory Application No.419 of 2005 in Original Suit No.510 of 2005 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. For Petitioners: Mr.S.Harihara Ramachandran ORDER The concurrent orders passed in Interlocutory Application No.419 of 2005 in Original Suit No.510 of 2005 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul and in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2005 by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondents herein as plaintiffs have instituted Original Suit No.510 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants 1 and 4 to 9. During pendency https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 of the same, the respondents/plaintiffs as petitioners have filed Interlocutory Application No.419 of 2005 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to pass an order of temporary injunction and the same has been allowed by the trial Court. Against the order passed by the trial Court, the respondents therein as appellants have filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2005 on the file of the first appellate Court. 3. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2005 and thereby confirmed the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.419 of 2005 in Original Suit No.510 of 2005 by the trial Court. Against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 4. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in Original Suit No.510 of 2005 and also the present status of the same and also considering the nature of the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court is of the view that notice need not be sent to the respondents and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that the suit properties are originally belonged to one Savarimuthu, father of the revision petitioners and respondents and he has not executed any indenture muchless in favour of the respondents/ plaintiffs and the revision petitioners have filed their detailed written statement, wherein they denied the execution of the alleged settlement deed, but the Courts below without considering the documents filed on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs have erroneously come to the conclusion that the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and under the said circumstances the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be interfered with. 6. As adverted to earlier, Original Suit No.510 of 2005 has been instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs on the basis of the settlement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 deed alleged to have been executed by the original owner of the suit properties. The definite case of the revision petitioners is that the original owner of the suit properties has not executed any settlement deed, muchless in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and further in Original Suit No.510 of 2005 on the side of the revision petitioners a detailed written statement has been filed and therefore it goes without saying that Original Suit No.510 of 2005 is ready for conducting trial. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court can be directed to dispose of Original Suit No.510 of 2005 on merits without giving much adherence to the findings given in Interlocutory Application No.419 of 2005, upheld in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2005. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are confirmed. However the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul is strictly directed to dispose of Original Suit No.510 of 2005 before the end of April, 2011. Further it is made clear that the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul should not be carried away by the findings given in Interlocutory Application No.419 of 2005 in Original Suit No.510 of 2005, upheld in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.27 of 2005. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul. 2.The Second Additional District Munsif, Dindigul. +1 CC TO MR. S. HARIHARA RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 2054 C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.93 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 20.01.2011 smn PAM 01.02.2011/4C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/