The Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendants 1 and 2 challenging the ad-interim injunction passed by the District Munsif, in I.A.No.1092 of 2008 in O.S.No.307 of 2008 on the file of District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
2. The plaintiff, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.1092 of 2008 in O.S.No.307 of 2008 praying an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the revision petitioners, the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff/respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property from cutting down the two palmyrah trees and other trees in existence in the suit property and from raising any construction or compound wall in the suit property. On 15.7.2008, the trial court granted ad-interim injunction till 31.7.2008. The respondents/defendants filed counter on 10.9.2008. Enquiry was postponed to 12.9.2008, 18.9.2008, 25.9.2008, 29.9.2008, 30.9.2008, 14.10.2008, 16.10.2008, 21.10.2008, 15.11.2008, 1.12.2008, 5.12.2008, 2.1.2009, 9.1.2009, 19.1.2009, 29.1.2009, 30.1.2009, 2.2.2009, 10.2.2009, 24.2.2009 27.2.2009, 5.3.2009, 20.3.2009, 30.4.2009, 30.6.3009 28.7.2009, 3.8.2009 and 3.9.2009. The order of ad-interim injunction has been extended all along without concluding the enquiry.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below ought to have disposed of the I.A.No.1092 of 2008 within 30 days. Without any just or proper reason, the enquiry in I.A.No.1092 of 2008 has been adjourned from time to time without just cause. At present, from the date of filing the counter in September, 2008, it is now more than one year. The suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff/respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property from cutting down the two palmyrah trees and other trees in existence in the suit property and from raising any construction or compound wall in the suit property and for damages in a sum of Rs.75,000/-.
4. At the time of admission, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners would be satisfied if suitable direction is issued to the court below to dispose of the I.A.No.1092 of 2008 within a time frame.
5. On perusal of the notes paper relating to the I.A.No.1092 of 2008 enclosing the typeset, it is clear that the court below having granted ad-interim injunction on 15.7.2008 and the revision petitioners/defendants having filed counter in September, 2008, without any just cause adjourned the enquiry from time to time for more than a year. Therefore, the prejudice pleaded by the revision petitioners/defendants is justified. The nature of adjournment granted by the court below cannot be justified. The court below ought to have disposed off the I.A.No.1098 of 2008 within time limit instead of adjourning the matter endlessly. In view of the above, the meaningless adjournment granted by the court below has to be curbed and direction has to be issued to dispose of the I.A.No.1098 of 2008 at an early date. Accordingly, the court below is directed to dispose of the I.A.No.1092 of 2008 expeditiously. There can be no impediment in disposing of the I.A.No.1092 of 2008, as admittedly the counter has also been filed.
6. In such circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Munsif, Cuddalore to dispose of the I.A.No.1092 of 2008 in O.S.No.307 of 2008 on or before 30.10.2009 after hearing both sides. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Office to note:
"Send a copy of this order to the District Munsif, Cuddalore within a week."
ts To The District Munsif, Cuddalore