← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/6371/2025dismissed

Pathricia v. Murugan

2025-12-15Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.6371 of 2025 and CMP.No.31548 and 31549 of 2025 Pathricia ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Murugan

2. Jabely Saravanan dit Pregassamourthy

3. Arumugam

4. Jabely Veronique Sonia

...Respondents

PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 30.07.2025 in I.A.No.05 of 2024 in O.S.No.254 of 20245 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry and consequently allow the I.A.No.05 of 2024 in O.S.No.254 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.U.Pressanna 1/4

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance of status-quo against the 1st respondent.

2. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.254 of 2024 for permanent injunction against the petitioner and others in respect of the suit A schedule property and recovery of possession in respect of C schedule property. The petitioner was arrayed as 2nd defendant in the suit.

3. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2024 seeking direction to the 1st respondent/plaintiff to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the suit. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in possession of entire suit property and the first respondent/plaintiff attempted to interfere with his possession. Therefore, he was constrained to file the present application with a prayer for status-quo.

4. In a suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, seeking prohibitory order against the petitioner in respect of A schedule property, the defendant is 2/4

not entitled to file an application seeking counter prohibitory order. If the petitioner wants prohibitory order, it is for him to file a separate suit or file a counter claim in the present suit. In the absence of any counter claim, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a prayer for status-quo. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

15.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MST/shl To The Additional Sub-Judge, Puducherry.

3/4

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

MST/shl 15.12.2025 4/4