CRP/6201/2026 of Myilsamy Vs Vasanthamani on 6 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 05.03.2026 passed in C.M.A.No.9 of 2024 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, wherein the appellate Court has reversed the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.458 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram, dated 24.11.2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.458 of 2023 seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Along with that suit, I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No.458 of 2023 was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC seeking interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. This application was allowed by the Sub-Court, Dharapuram, by order dated 24.11.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/defendant filed C.M.A.9 of 2024 before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. The appellate Court, on considering the rival claims and taking note of the facts of the present case and taking note of the nature of property involved, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property which is 1 acre in S.F.No.1228 till the disposal of the suit and the parties were directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit before the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

4. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate Court has tampered with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court by substituting its views on the merits of the case, which is not permissible. It is further submitted that the appellate Court did not apply the test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and hardship and the entire reasoning of the appellate Court was based on re- appreciation of facts, which is impermissible in law. It is further contended that the order passed by the appellate Court is in excess of jurisdiction not available under Order 43 CPC and the same requires the interference of this Court.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the appellate Court has taken into consideration the nature of property that is involved in this case, which is 1 acre of land in S.F.No.1228 out of the total of 7.42 acres. The appellate Court also took into consideration the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff had purchased common 1 acre in S.F.No.1228 and already a suit was filed in this regard in O.S.No.371 of 2015 against the defendant’s husband and others. Considering the same, the appellate Court thought it fit to direct the parties to maintain status quo and co-operate for the early disposal of the suit. The above order passed by the appellate Court does not suffer from perversity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The appellate Court has safeguarded the rights of both parties by directing both parties to maintain stauts quo and therefore, whatever status was

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm/ksk prevailing as on the date of filing of the suit can continue till the disposal of the suit. The suit was filed in the year 2023 and the suit is for bare injunction and therefore, both parties can focus their attention on the disposal of the suit within a time frame. In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Sub Court, Dharapuram, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.458 of 2023 within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that any observations made by the trial Court, appellate Court and this Court in the present civil revision petition will not have any bearing when the trial Court ultimately decides the suit on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm/ksk To

1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. The Sub Court, Dharapuram. Civil Revision Petition No.6201 of 2026