P.J.Johnson v. Ramathilagam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM C.R.P.(PD) No.2539 of 2016 and CMP.No.13054 of 2016 P.J.Johnson ... Petitioner Vs.

Mrs.Ramathilagam ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 07.04.2016 in Ia.No.833 of 2015 in IA.No.578 of 2014 in OS.No.218 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Poonamallee.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

O R D E R

This revision challenges the order of learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, passed in IA.No.833 of 2015 in IA.No.578 of 2014 in OS.No.218 of 2014 on 07.04.2016. 2.O.S.No.218 of 2014 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee, is an action moved by respondent/plaintiff

seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Along with the suit, he has moved I.A.No.578 of 2014 seeking ad-interim injunction. The same eventually reserved for orders on 27.07.2015. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff has moved I.A.No.833 of 2015 in I.A.No.578 of 2014 In O.S.No.218 of 2014 towards marking additional documents. Such application was also reserved for orders on 10.09.2015 and the orders therein came to be passed only on 07.04.2016. Aggrieved, defendant/petitioner has moved the present revision.

3.Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the application in I.A.No.578 of 2014 itself stood reserved for orders on 27.07.2015 and very much thereafter, I.A.No.833 of 2015 to mark additional documents in the main IA has been moved. In the affidavit filed in support of such application, absolutely no reason or particulars of the documents sought to be marked, is informed. Despite such position and after very much delay, the Court below

has passed an unreasoned order, which necessarily would have to be set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the property in respect of which the respondent/plaintiff seeks injunction is one which had been purchased by petitioner/defendant in the year 1985 and the document of property purchased by respondent in the year 1987 is not genuine and is invalid.

5.While this Court finds much force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, this court also finds some grace in the order of the Court below in that in allowing reopening of I.A.No.578 of 2014 towards marking further documents, the Court below has permitted marking of documents subject to proof and relevancy. In the said circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.

6.In the result, the civil revision is dismissed. From the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner, it is seen that there is much delay in the conduct of proceedings before the Court below. Hence, this Court directs the Court below to dispose of OS.No.218 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within

a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

22.08.2016 To The Additional District Munsif at Poonamallee.

C.T.SELVAM, J tsh C.R.P.(PD) No.2539 of 2016 22.08.2016.