1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.385 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 1.Chellammal 2.Ramakrishnan 3.Selvi 4.Kalyani .. Petitioners Vs. Muthukumari .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and decree passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2009 by the Sub Court, Valliyoor confirming the fair and decretal order dated 13.04.2009 passed in Interlocutory Application No.243 of 2009 in Original Suit No.100 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Ashok for M/s.Jeyapaul Associates ORDER The concurrent orders passed in Interlocutory Application No.243 of 2009 in Original Suit No.100 of 2009 and in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2009 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor and by the Sub Court, Valliyoor respectively are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.100 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions, wherein the present revision petitioners have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the petition in question has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.243 of 2009 so as to direct the revision petitioners/respondents/ defendants to open the lock and the trial Court has allowed the same. Against the order passed by the trial Court, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2009 has been preferred on the file of the appellate Court and the same has been dismissed. Against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below as well as the nature of the reliefs sought for in Original Suit No.100 of 2009, notice need not be sent to the respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that the respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has run a Flour Mill in the suit property and she voluntarily closed the same and proper intimation has been given to the revision petitioners and subsequently the revision petitioners have locked it and further Original Suit No.100 of 2009 has been filed for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 present petition has been filed so as to get interim mandatory injunction and the trial Court without considering its maintainability has allowed the same and the appellate Court has also erroneously confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and under the said circumstances the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be interfered with. 5. As explicated earlier, Original Suit No.100 of 2009 has been instituted for the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.243 of 2009 so as to direct the revision petitioners/respondents/ defendants to open the lock put up by them. The trial Court has allowed the same and the appellate Court has also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. 6. In the written statement filed on the side of the revision petitioners/respondents/ defendants, it has been clearly stated that Original Suit No.7 of 2009 has been instituted on the file of the trial Court for the relief of eviction, wherein the present respondent/ petitioner/plaintiff has been shown as defendant. Since Original Suit No.7 of 2009 has been filed for the relief of eviction, wherein the present respondent/petitioner/plaintiff has been shown as defendant, it is needless to say that both Original Suit No.100 of 2009 and Original Suit No.7 of 2009 should be clubbed together and a common trial should be conducted. So far as the relief sought for in Interlocutory Application No.243 of 2009 is concerned, as stated earlier, so as to direct the revision petitioners/ respondents/defendants to open the lock, which has been put up by them. Considering the fact that for the relief of eviction Original Suit No.7 of 2009 has been filed by the revision petitioners as plaintiffs, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is needless to say that the revision petitioners/respondents/defendants can be directed to open the lock, subject to the result of Original Suit No.7 of 2009 and Original Suit No.100 of 2009. 7. It has already been pointed out that Original Suit No.7 of 2009 and Original Suit No.100 of 2009 should be clubbed together and a common trial should be conducted. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court can be directed to dispose of both the suits as indicated below. Further as observed earlier, the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below cannot be interfered with. 8. 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. The Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor is strictly directed to dispose of Original Suit No.7 of 2009 and Original Suit No.100 of 2009 before the end of April, 2011 and report the same to the Registry without fail. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor. 2.The Principal District Munsif, Valliyoor. 3.The Section Officer, Judicial Department, Madurai bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. smn C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.385 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 01.03.2011 TR : 09.03.2011 : 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/