CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Jayaram Reddy, Veena and Prasath Kumar vs Muniammal @ Komalammal and Ravi @ Balaji Kumar

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 January 2009 · Citation: (2009) 01 MAD CK 0237

HON’BLE JUDGES
G. Rajasuria, J
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. (PD) No. 1764 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 346 words

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur in CMA No. 1 of

2008, confirming the order and decree made in I.A. No. 237 of 2006 in O.S. No. 104 of 2006 dated 13.09.2006, this civil revision petition is

focussed.

2.

Heard both sides.

3.

A summation and summarisation of relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 237 of 2006 and got an

order of interim injunction. The trial Court before ordering interim injunction entertained oral evidence and documents were also marked. Being

aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, the defendants filed C.M.A. No. 1 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Hosur, which

was also dismissed. Challenging the orders of both the courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds.

4.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners at the outset would make a supine submission to the effect that they would be satisfied if a

direction is given to the effect that oral evidence adduced before the District Munsif Court in connection with the I.A. for interim injunction is not to

be relied on in the suit and that during trial in the main suit fresh evidence should be taken. Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondents

would agree to such a suggestion. Hence while dismissing this civil revision petition, the following direction is passed:

The oral evidence recorded in I.A. No. 237 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court shall not be relied on during trial in the main suit and

untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by all the three Courts, the District Munsif Court shall conduct trial and dispose of

the matter purely on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.