CRP/6155/2026 of N. Murali @ N. Murali Shankar Vs N.Ravi on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2, seeking to set aside the injunction order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondents 3 to 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 1998 seeking partition against the petitioner and other respondents. In the said suit, preliminary decree for partition was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.4 of 2025 seeking to pass final decree. Pending final decree petition, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.7 of 2025 seeking injunction, restraining the respondents and others from putting up any new construction in the suit property till the disposal of the final decree petition. In the said injunction petition, though notice was served on the respondents 1

and 2, they failed to appear and hence, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, injunction petition was allowed and the respondents were restrained from putting up any construction in the suit property and also altering the physical features, pending disposal of the final decree petition.

3. Aggrieved by the injunction order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025, the respondents 1 and 2 herein had filed an application in I.A.No.3 of 2026, seeking to set aside the above injunction order. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application in I.A.No.3 of 2026, it was asserted by the respondents 1 and 2 that no notice was served on them in the injunction petition, in terms of Order 38 Rule 3 of CPC and hence, the injunction order passed against them shall be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein filed a detailed counter and opposed the petition in I.A.No.3 of 2026. In the counter, it was stated by the petitioner that on 12.04.2026, when the injunction order was passed against the respondents, the 2nd respondent and his counsel Mr.Arun were present in the Court and they sought adjournment. The request made by the counsel was declined by the Trial Court and injunction application was allowed.

5. In the impugned order passed in the vacate injunction petition, the Trial Court has not given any findings with regard to the assertion made by the respondents 1 and 2 that no notice was served on them in the injunction application. Whereas, a perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.7 of 2025 would indicate that notice was duly served on the respondents and inspite of the same, they failed to appear before the court. Therefore, as per the recording of the court, it is clear that notice was duly served on the respondents in the injunction application, however, there was no representation on their side. Therefore, the main assertion made by the respondents 1 and 2 that notice was not served on them in the injunction application cannot be accepted.

6. As mentioned above, already preliminary decree has been passed and final decree petition is pending for disposal. When the petition for passing final decree is under consideration of the court, it is not proper on either side of the parties to alter/change the physical features of the suit property. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have not made out any case to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court, granting injunction restraining the respondents from altering the physical features of the suit property. In the impugned order, the Trial Court observed that a blanket injunction order would cause prejudice to the respondents and hence, injunction order need to be set aside. If the respondents are allowed to alter the physical features, it will cause further complication at the time of passing final decree and execution. Therefore, this court feels that the Trial Court, without giving any findings on the assertion made by the respondents that no notice was served on them, erroneously passed the impugned order, setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025.

7. It is needless to state that if the respondents are aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025, it is for them to challenge the same in the manner known to law. On the other hand, it is not open to them to file an application to set aside the order by making averments on the merits of the matter. When the Trial Court, in its order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025, recorded a finding that notice was duly served on the respondents and inspite of the same, they failed to appear before the court, without setting aside the said finding, the court below ought not have passed the impugned order, setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.7 of 2025 on merits. Therefore, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

8. In case, the respondents or the petitioner wanted to do any repair works in the suit property, it is always open to them to file an appropriate application in the final decree petition before the Trial Court, seeking permission to carry out such works.

9. With this clarification, this civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.3 of 2026, in I.A.No.7 of 2025 in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.S.No.144 of 1998 dated 02.09.2026 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6155 of 2026 06-10-2026