Inveighing the order dated 28.12.2001 in I.A.No.212 of 2001 in O.S.No.89 of 2001 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Arakkonam as confirmed in CMA No.1 of 2002 dated 17.09.2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The long and short of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the records could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.89 of 2001 seeking bare injunction and he also pleaded part performance invoking Section 53(A) of the TNCTP Act. I.A.No.212 of 2001 seeking interim injunction so as to protect the possession of the plaintiff was filed and it was dismissed by the lower Court on merits, as against which C.M.A.No.1 of 2002 was filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, which also was dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would develop his argument to the effect that pending suit, the possession of the plaintiff has to be protected as otherwise it will cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioner/plaintiff.
5. Perused the records.
6. The trial Court after hearing both sides and analysing elaborately the evidence, dismissed the application for interim injunction. I could also see from the copy of the order of the trial Court that in the I.A. itself as many as 8 documents were marked on the petitioner's side and 16 documents were marked on the defendants' side. The First Appellate Court also after hearing both sides confirmed the view taken by the lower Court in not granting interim injunction. Hence, in such a case, I recollect the well settled proposition of law, that this Court while exercising its revisional power will not interfere with the findings based on facts. Here no serious law point is involved, but factual analysis alone was undertaken by both the Courts below. Hence in such a case, I am of the considered opinion that no interference with the finding of both the Courts below at this stage is warranted. However, I would like to direct the trial Court to dispose of the injunction suit O.S.No.89 of 2001 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order untrammelled and uninfluenced by the said order of both the Courts below.
Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.02.2009 Index : Yes Internet: Yes G.RAJASURIA, J.
gms To
1. The District Munsif, Arakkonam
2. The Subordinate Judge, Ranipet.
C.R.P.(PD)No.333 of 2008 10.02.2009