Mount View Advent Academy Matriculation School, Vs. 1.James Peter Jesudas - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1170029
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnNov-06-2014
JudgeM.DURAISWAMY
AppellantMount View Advent Academy Matriculation School,
Respondent1.James Peter Jesudas
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:06.11.2014 coram the honourable mr.justice m.duraiswamy c.r.p.(pd)(md)nos.1784 of 2014 to 1789 of 2014 & m.p.(md).nos. 2, 2, 2, 2,2 and 2 of 2014 c.r.p.(md).no.1784 of 2014 mount view advent academy matriculation school, represented by its administrative secretary, mr.prabhu durai arasu, kodaimangalam, madurai south taluk, madurai. ..petitioner -vs- 1.james peter jesudas 2.mount view advent academy matriculation school trust, nagathirtham, kodimangalam, thiruvedagam post, madurai south taluk, madurai. ..respondents prayer civil revision petition filed under article 227 of the constitution of india to set aside the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the learned ii additional subordinate judge, madurai, i.a.no.535 of 2014 in i.a.no.59 of 2013 in o.s.no.777/2013. !for petitioner :mr.s.ramesh ^for respondents :mrs.s.vijayashanthi :common order c.r.p.(md).no.1784 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in i.a.no.535 of 2014, in i.a.no.59 of 2013 in o.s.no.77 of 2013 on the file of ii additional subordinate judge, madurai. c.r.p.(md).no.1785 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in i.a.no.536 of 2014, in i.a.no.60 of 2013 in o.s.no.77 of 2013 on the file of ii additional subordinate judge, madurai. c.r.p.(md).no.1786 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in i.a.no.537 of 2014, in i.a.no.61 of 2013 in o.s.no.77 of 2013 on the file of ii additional subordinate judge, madurai. c.r.p.(md).no.1787 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in i.a.no.538 of 2014, in o.s.no.77 of 2013 on the file of ii additional subordinate judge, madurai. c.r.p.(md).no.1788 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in i.a.no.539 of 2014, in i.a.no.60 of 2013 in o.s.no.77 of 2013 on the file of ii additional subordinate judge, madurai. c.r.p.(md).no.1789 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in i.a.no.540 of 2014, in i.a.no.60 of 2013 in o.s.no.77 of 2013 on the file of ii additional subordinate judge, madurai.2. the plaintiff filed the suit in o.s.no.77 of 2013 for bare injunction. in the said suit, the plaintiff filed the applications in i.a.nos.59 to 61 of 2013 for interim injunction. the trial court granted exparte interim injunction on 26.11.2013. since the defendants remained exparte in the suit, an exparte order was passed on 26.11.2013. thereafter, the defendant filed an application in i.a.no.538 of 2014 to set aside the exparte order dated 26.11.2013. the said application was allowed by the trial court on 05.08.2014.3. to set aside the exparte order of injunction granted by the trial court in i.a.nos.59 to 61 of 2013, the defendant filed i.a.nos.535, to 537 of 2014 and the trial court allowed the applications on 05.08.2014. now, according to the learned counsel on either side, injunction applications in i.a.nos.59 to 61 of 2013 are pending before the trial court. further, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the defendants have filed their counter, and the same is pending for enquiry.4. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the defendants violated the order of injunction during the period between 26.11.2013 and 05.08.2014, the plaintiff filed an application in i.a.no.540 of 2014 under order 39 rule 2a cpc for punishing the first defendant for violating the order of injunction. since the trial court set aside the exparte order of injunction, dismissed the application in i.a.no.540 of 2014 as infructuous. the order passed by the trial court cannot stand for the reason that the application under order 39 rule 2a cpc was filed filed by the plaintiff for the disobedience of the order of injunction during the period 26.11.2013 and 05.08.2014. therefore, the application in i.a.no.540 of 2014 shall not become infructuous, in view of the order passed in i.a.nos. 535 to 537 of 2014 and therefore, the order passed in i.a.no.540 of 2014 is liable to be set aside.5. similarly, the plaintiff filed i.a.no.539 of 2014 seeking police protection. the said application was also dismissed by the trial court as infructuous as done in the earlier application. this application also cannot be dismissed on the ground that the application to set aside to the exparte order was allowed by the trail court. hence the applications in i.a.nos.539 and 540 of 2014 are restored. accordingly, the orders passed in i.a.nos.539 and 540 of 2014 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh disposal, on merits and in accordance with law.6. so far as i.a.no.538 of 2014 is concerned, it is the application filed by the defendant to set aside the exparte order passed in the suit o.s.no.77 of 2013. in the interest of justice, the application was rightly allowed by the trial court on 05.08.2014. i do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court. the civil revision petition c.r.p.(md).no.1787 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.7. so far as the applications in i.a.nos.535 to 537 of 2014 are concerned, that applications are filed by the defendant to set aside the exparte order of injunction granted on 26.11.2013 and by order dated 05.08.2014, the said applications were allowed and now the injunction applications in i.a.nos.59 to 61 of 2013 are pending.8. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents/defendants have filed their counter and their applications are pending adjudication before the trial court. since the applications are pending before the trial court, the trial court is directed to take up the applications in i.a.nos.59 to 61 of 2013 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. similarly, the trial court is also directed to dispose of the applications in i.a.no.539 and 540 of 2014 along with the applications in i.a.nos.59 to 61 of 2014, within the said period.9. the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondents filed applications in o.s.no.221 of 2010 on the file of district munsif court, madurai taluk and the said suit was renumbered as o.s.no.629 of 2014 and transferred to the file of ii additional sub court, madurai to be tried along with o.s.no.77 of 2013. the trial court is also directed to dispose of all the applications in o.s.no.629 of 2014 within three weeks rrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10. a division bench of this court had already given a direction to dispose of the suit in o.s.nos.77 of 2013 and 629 of 2014, within a period of three months. the trial court is directed to comply with the orders of the division bench and dispose of the suits, within the stipulated time.11. with the above observations, the civil revision petitions crp (md).nos.1784 to 1787 are dismissed and the civil revision petitions in crp(md).nos.1788 and 1789 of 2014 are allowed. there shall be no order as to costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. to 1.the ii additional sub judge, madurai.
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06.11.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.1784 of 2014 to 1789 of 2014 & M.P.(MD).Nos. 2, 2, 2, 2,2 and 2 of 2014 C.R.P.(MD).No.1784 of 2014 Mount View Advent Academy Matriculation School, Represented by its Administrative Secretary, Mr.Prabhu Durai Arasu, Kodaimangalam, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. ..Petitioner -vs- 1.James Peter Jesudas 2.Mount View Advent Academy Matriculation School Trust, Nagathirtham, Kodimangalam, Thiruvedagam Post, Madurai South Taluk, Madurai. ..Respondents PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, I.A.No.535 of 2014 in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.777/2013. !For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ramesh ^For Respondents :Mrs.S.Vijayashanthi :COMMON ORDER

C.R.P.(MD).No.1784 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.535 of 2014, in I.A.No.59 of 2013 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. C.R.P.(MD).No.1785 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.536 of 2014, in I.A.No.60 of 2013 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. C.R.P.(MD).No.1786 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.537 of 2014, in I.A.No.61 of 2013 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. C.R.P.(MD).No.1787 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.538 of 2014, in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. C.R.P.(MD).No.1788 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.539 of 2014, in I.A.No.60 of 2013 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. C.R.P.(MD).No.1789 of 2014 arises against the fair and final order passed in I.A.No.540 of 2014, in I.A.No.60 of 2013 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.77 of 2013 for bare injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed the applications in I.A.Nos.59 to 61 of 2013 for interim injunction. The Trial Court granted exparte interim injunction on 26.11.2013. Since the defendants remained exparte in the suit, an exparte order was passed on 26.11.2013. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.538 of 2014 to set aside the exparte order dated 26.11.2013. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court on 05.08.2014.

3. To set aside the exparte order of injunction granted by the Trial Court in I.A.Nos.59 to 61 of 2013, the defendant filed I.A.Nos.535, to 537 of 2014 and the Trial Court allowed the applications on 05.08.2014. Now, according to the learned counsel on either side, injunction applications in I.A.Nos.59 to 61 of 2013 are pending before the Trial Court. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the defendants have filed their counter, and the same is pending for enquiry.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the defendants violated the order of injunction during the period between 26.11.2013 and 05.08.2014, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.540 of 2014 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for punishing the first defendant for violating the order of injunction. Since the Trial Court set aside the exparte order of injunction, dismissed the application in I.A.No.540 of 2014 as infructuous. The order passed by the Trial Court cannot stand for the reason that the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC was filed filed by the plaintiff for the disobedience of the order of injunction during the period 26.11.2013 and 05.08.2014. Therefore, the application in I.A.No.540 of 2014 shall not become infructuous, in view of the order passed in I.A.Nos. 535 to 537 of 2014 and therefore, the order passed in I.A.No.540 of 2014 is liable to be set aside.

5. Similarly, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.539 of 2014 seeking police protection. The said application was also dismissed by the Trial Court as infructuous as done in the earlier application. This application also cannot be dismissed on the ground that the application to set aside to the exparte order was allowed by the Trail Court. Hence the applications in I.A.Nos.539 and 540 of 2014 are restored. Accordingly, the orders passed in I.A.Nos.539 and 540 of 2014 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal, on merits and in accordance with law.

6. So far as I.A.No.538 of 2014 is concerned, it is the application filed by the defendant to set aside the exparte order passed in the suit O.S.No.77 of 2013. In the interest of justice, the application was rightly allowed by the Trial Court on 05.08.2014. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court. The civil revision petition C.R.P.(MD).No.1787 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

7. So far as the applications in I.A.Nos.535 to 537 of 2014 are concerned, that applications are filed by the defendant to set aside the exparte order of injunction granted on 26.11.2013 and by order dated 05.08.2014, the said applications were allowed and now the injunction applications in I.A.Nos.59 to 61 of 2013 are pending.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents/defendants have filed their counter and their applications are pending adjudication before the Trial Court. Since the applications are pending before the Trial Court, The Trial Court is directed to take up the applications in I.A.Nos.59 to 61 of 2013 and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Similarly, the trial Court is also directed to dispose of the applications in I.A.No.539 and 540 of 2014 along with the applications in I.A.Nos.59 to 61 of 2014, within the said period.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondents filed applications in O.S.No.221 of 2010 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk and the said suit was renumbered as O.S.No.629 of 2014 and transferred to the file of II Additional Sub Court, Madurai to be tried along with O.S.No.77 of 2013. The Trial Court is also directed to dispose of all the applications in O.S.No.629 of 2014 within three weeks rrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. A Division Bench of this Court had already given a direction to dispose of the suit in O.S.Nos.77 of 2013 and 629 of 2014, within a period of three months. The Trial Court is directed to comply with the orders of the Division Bench and dispose of the suits, within the stipulated time.

11. With the above observations, the civil Revision Petitions CRP (MD).Nos.1784 to 1787 are dismissed and the civil revision petitions in CRP(MD).Nos.1788 and 1789 of 2014 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. To 1.The II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.