Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Mr K Rajasekaran In Both O S As vs Mr Mufaddal Ebrahim 1St

Madras High Court|02 August, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE O.S.A.Nos.114 & 115 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2014 Mr.K.Rajasekaran ... Appellant in both O.S.As'
vs.
1. Mr.Mufaddal Ebrahim ... 1st respondent in O.S.A.No.114/2014
1. Mr.Huzaifa Zoeb ... 2nd respondent in O.S.A.No.115/2014
2. Selvi.K.Sakunthala 3.Mrs.K.Kannammal 4.Mrs.K.Neelawathy 5.Mr.K.Palani @ K.Palanivel 6.Mr.K.Durairaj 7.Mr.Radhakrishnan 8.Mr.Sakthivel 9.Mr.Karthikeyan 10.Ms.Geethalakshmi 11.Ms.Senthil Kumari 12.Mrs.P.Gomathy, 13.Miss.P.Subhashini
14. Master P.Prabhakaran Represented by his mother and natural guardian Mrs.P.Gomathy.
15. Master P.Udhaya Kumar Represented by his mother and natural guardian Mrs.P.Gomathy. ... Respondents 2 to 15 in both O.S.As'
Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decretal order dated http://www.judis.nic.in 15.07.2013 in A.Nos.496 and 497 of 2011 respectively in C.S.No.488 of 2008.
For Appellant : Mr.D.N.George Graham (In both O.S.As') for M/s.Devadason & Sagar For Respondents : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal for R1 (In both O.S.As') COMMON JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.]
1. These appeals are arising out of a common order dated 15.07.2013 passed in A.Nos.496 and 497 of 2011.
1.1. By virtue of the impugned judgment and order, the learned single Judge impleaded the party arrayed as respondent No.1 in each of the captioned appeals i.e., Mr.Mufaddal Ebrahim (A.No.496 of 2011) and Mr. Huzaifa Zoeb (A.No.497 of 2011) as defendant Nos.16 and 17, respectively in the pending suit i.e., C.S.No.488 of 2008.
2. Counsel for the appellant says that since the original defendants had violated the interim injunction granted via order dated 29.08.2008, by selling the suit property to defendant Nos. 16 and 17, applications under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short “CPC”), were filed, in which order dated 09.12.2011 was passed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant draws our attention to the fact that, while disposing of the applications filed under Order XXXIX Rule 3A of http://www.judis.nic.in CPC, an undertaking was taken from defendant Nos.16 and 17 to the effect that they would be bound by the decree, that may be passed against defendant Nos.1 to 11. Counsel for the appellant concedes that the aforementioned applications, i.e., A.Nos.496 & 497 of 2011 were filed by defendant Nos.16 and 17 in the background of the aforementioned order dated 09.12.2011.
3.1. We are informed that because of the pendency of the captioned appeals, there has been no progress in the suit.
4. According to us, no interference is called for vis-a-vis the impugned judgment and order.
4.1. Having regard to the fact that the suit has not progressed, we are inclined to issue the following directions:
(i) The appellant will carry out an amendment in the cause title of the suit within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
(ii) Respondent No.1, in each of the captioned appeals i.e., Mr.Mufaddal Ebrahim and Mr. Huzaifa Zoeb, will file their written statements within two (2) weeks from today.
(iii) Replication, if any, will be filed by the appellant within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copies of written statements, that may be filed by respondent No.1 in the captioned appeals, i.e., defendant http://www.judis.nic.inNos.16 and 17.
(iv) in case, written statements are not filed, no further opportunity will be given to defendant Nos.16 and 17 to file written statements.
(v) Upon pleadings being completed, in the time schedule indicated above, the matter will be placed before the learned single Judge on 29.08.2017 for framing of issues.
(vi) Learned single Judge will be at liberty to direct that, evidence in this case, be recorded by the learned Master.
5. These appeals are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.
Consequently, the connected pending applications are closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(R.S.A., J.) (A.Q., J.) vsm 02.08.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
and ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsm O.S.A.Nos.114 & 115 of 2014 02.08.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr K Rajasekaran In Both O S As vs Mr Mufaddal Ebrahim 1St

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 August, 2017
Judges
  • Rajiv Shakdher
  • Abdul Quddhose O