Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2710/2026 of Seeniammal Alias Nagammal (D Vs Malairajan on 7 October 2026
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011246362026}
AND
CMP(MD) No. 13869 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011260982026}
1. Seeniammal Alias Nagammal (Died), 1. Eshwari, W/o.Karthikeyan, Perumalpatti , Chettikulam Village Uthkadai, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.
2. Pappa
W/o.Jeyaraman,
Perumalpatti,
Chettikulam Village Uthakadai,
Thirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Malairajan,
S/o.Late.Ponniah Naicker,
Sathangudi Post, Kandukulam Village,
Thirumangalam Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: J-36. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to set aside the Docket Order dated 01.08.2026 passed in O.S.No.24 / 2013, (on the file of Additional District Munsif Court Thirumangalam) and pass such further or other order as this Honourable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
__________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.N.Arjun
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the docket order dated 01.08.2026 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2013 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.
2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 307 of 2008, a suit filed by the respondent seeking an injunction. The said suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners/defendants preferred a Second Appeal in S.A. (MD) No. 598 of 2014 before this Hon’ble Court, and the same is pending consideration.
3. During the pendency of the aforesaid Second Appeal, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No. 24 of 2013 seeking recovery of possession, pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Trial Court in O.S. No. 307 of 2008. In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff also obtained an order of injunction under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure during the year 2018. While so, the Trial Court, namely, the District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam, has now vacated the said order of stay/injunction on the __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026 ground that the petitioners have not obtained any order of stay from the Second Appellate Court in S.A. (MD) No. 598 of 2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.
4. The petitioner contends that, since the parties to both the suits are the same, the proceedings in the subsequent suit ought to be stayed till the disposal of the Second Appeal. It is pertinent to note that the Second Appeal, namely, S.A. (MD) No. 598 of 2014, was filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 and has been pending for several years. The petitioner has admittedly not taken any effective steps to have the said Second Appeal disposed of at the earliest. It is further submitted that the reliefs sought in the two suits are entirely different. O.S. No. 307 of 2008 was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking the relief of injunction, whereas O.S. No. 24 of 2013 has been instituted seeking recovery of possession. Merely because the parties to both the proceedings are the same, it cannot be contended that the reliefs sought therein are identical or that the subsequent suit is liable to be stayed. The cause of action and the reliefs sought in the two suits are distinct. It is also pertinent to point out that the petitioner himself has admitted that O.S. No. 24 of 2013 was instituted pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Trial Court in O.S. No. 307 of 2008. Having admitted the same, the petitioner cannot now seek to stall the proceedings in the subsequent suit on the ground of the pendency of the Second Appeal. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026 seeking to stay the proceedings, and the order passed by the learned Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Hon’ble Court.
5. If the petitioner seeks any order of stay in respect of the subject matter covered by the Second Appeal, the appropriate remedy available to him is to approach the Second Appellate Court in S.A. (MD) No. 598 of 2014 and seek appropriate orders therein. The petitioner cannot seek such relief before the Trial Court in O.S. No. 24 of 2013. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NS To The Additional District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. ns CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026 AND CMP(MD) No. 13869 of 2026 07-10-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )
CRP(MD) No. 2710 of 2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 22/10/2026 04:19:57 pm )