R. Muthumani and Rathinam R. vs Subramanian M.

Aruna Jagadeesan, J.—This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 30.1.2008 made in CMA. No. 13/2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, reversing the order in IA. No. 242/2006 in OS. No. 152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District.

The petitioners herein are the defendants in the above said suit. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the said suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to restore electricity connection to the motor attached to the bore well, from which water is drawn to the over head tank, which was used by the plaintiff.

Pending the suit, the respondent/plaintiff sought for mandatory injunction in IA. No. 242/2006, directing the defendants to restore electricity connection to the motor attached to the bore well and the same was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Aranthangi, Pudukottai. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent preferred CMA. No. 13/2007 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, who granted the said relief and directed the petitioners to restore the electricity connection to the motor attached to the bore well within a month from the date of the order. As against the said order, this civil revision petition has been filed by the defendants.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that when the prayer in the main suit and the interim relief are one and same, no relief could be granted and the order dated 30.1.2008 in CMA. No. 13/2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai reversing the order in IA. No. 242/2006 in OS. No. 152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District is not proper.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that when the tenancy is not disputed, there is a prima facie case for the grant of mandatory injunction for the reason that if the electricity connection is not restored, then the respondent would be put to irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated. He would further contend that considering the balance of convenience in favour of the respondent, the lower appellate court has granted interim mandatory injunction and thus supported the grant of order passed by the lower appellate authority, citing the decision of the Division Bench of this Court to strengthen his contention.

In the case of Smt. Jayachitra and Master G. Amresh rep. by Father and Natural Guardian V. Ganeshh Vs. A.N.S. Nall Azhagu and Others, , the Division Bench of this Court has held that for considering the question of grant of injunction, a court is required to find out a prima facie case in favour of the person seeking injunction. The question of irreparable loss to such applicant and question of balance of convenience and the very nature of things, any discussion on such aspects at the time of considering the question of injunction can only be a prima facie consideration and a detailed analysis of various materials is not to be undertaken at the time of consideration of such interim applications. It further observed that when the matter comes up in appeal, the appellate authority is also equally expected to consider such aspects prima facie and a detailed discussion regarding pros and cons of the rival cases is to be eschewed as otherwise the parties may be prejudiced at the time of trial. Prima facie case means the party is not expected to prove his case to the hilt. The decisions reported in the cases of Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai v. Hetero Drugs Limited, Hyderabad 2006 1 MLJ 542, Mariappan Vs. A.R. Safiullah, Mr. Daniel, Jayam Industries and M.A. Rajabudeen, Proprietor, trading as Shalimar Traders, and Sri Maruthi Marine Industries Ltd by its Manager v. Munusamy 2006 4 LJ 246 are to the same effect.

The respondent is the tenant under the petitioners in respect of the Shops in Door Nos. 345/2, 345/3 and 345/4, running a Firm under the name and style of M/s. Sri Balaji and Sri Saravana Groups and also in occupation of the residential portion at the back portion of the Shops on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. It is the case of the respondent that there was electricity connection to draw water from the bore well to the over head tank and same was used by the respondent and his family members for all purposes and in order to evict the respondent from the premises, the petitioners have disconnected the electricity connection from 31.3.2006, which has caused irreparable injury and hardship to the respondent.

The trial court has declined to grant interim mandatory injunction on the sole ground that the respondent has not produced any lease deed to prove the lease agreement between the petitioners and the respondent and failed to consider the fact that the tenancy is not disputed by the petitioners. The lower appellate court, after considering the rival contentions made by the petitioners, has found prima facie case for granting interim mandatory injunction and has exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent and held that the balance of convenience for granting interim mandatory injunction was in favour of the respondent.

Before the court below, the petitioners contended that there was no water connection at any point of time, which was refuted by the petitioners, pointing out to the report of the Advocate Commissioner that there were pipe lines leading to the portion in occupation of the respondent from the over head tank, indicating that there was water and electricity connections for the said purpose prior to the disconnection.

From the above, it is seen that the petitioners have disconnected the water and electricity connection, thus prevented the respondent from using the water from the bore well, thus causing irreparable hardship and injury to the respondent. The necessary criteria for establishing a prima facie case has been shown by the respondent and in such event, non interference by the court would definitely result in irreparable injury and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondent.

The lower appellate court has found from the pleadings and the materials placed on record that the respondent''s case required consideration or otherwise that would result irreparable hardship to the respondent and granted an order of mandatory injunction. In such view of the matter, I am unable to find any irregularity or infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 in CMA. No. 13/2007 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai reversing the order in IA. No. 242/2006 in OS. No. 152/2006 dated 14.9.2006 by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai, and warrants no interference by this Court and hence, the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed.

In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.