Madras High Court
CRP/6136/2026 of Periyasamy Vs Palani on 1 October 2026
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012064522026}
1. Periyasamy
S/o Thanappan,
V.R.Kandigai Village,
Mylarvada panchayat,
Paivalasa Post,
R.K.Pet Taluk,
Erumbi Via,
Thiruvallur- 631 302.
2. Thanappan,
S/o Chinnappa,
V.R.Kandigai Village,
Mylarvada Panchayat.
Paivalasa Post,
R.K.Pet Taluk,
Erumbi Via,
Thiruvalur- 631302.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Palani
S/o Azhagasan,
V.R. Kandigai Village,
Mylarvada Panchayat,
Paivalasa Post, R.K.Pet Taluk,
Erumbi Via, Thiruvallur- 631 302
2. Munisamy,
S/o Chinnakullanthai,
Veerapparedykandigai Village,
Paivalasa Post,
R.K.Pet Taluk, Erumbi Via,
Thiruvallur- 631 302.
3. Gajanthiran,
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
S/o Chinnakullanthai,
Ramapuram Village,
Kolanthangari,
Sengalnatham Post,
Solingar Taluk,
Ranipet District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to impunged order dated 23.07.2026 in
I.A.No.2 of 2022 in OS.No.170 of 2022 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, Thiruvallur District and set aside the same and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.R.Thiruneelakandan
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 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 23.07.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in OS.No.170 of 2022 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, Thiruvallur District, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C., for grant of ad- interim injunction, came to be dismissed by the Court below.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record and this Court also carefully went through the order passed by the Court below.
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.170 of 2022 seeking for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, IA No.2 of 2022 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C., seeking for an order of interim injunction. The same was contested by the respondents/defendants and ultimately, the Court below, by an order dated 23.06.2026, dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the suit has already been posted for trial and there was no necessity to deal with this application at this length of time and aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
4. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the fault lies on the Trial Court to have kept the application pending from the year 2022 and ultimately, dismissing the application in the year 2026 without assigning any reason and only on the ground that the suit is at the stage of trial. The learned counsel submitted that if this type of disposal is allowed, no Trial Court will understand the urgency involved in an interlocutory application and the same will amount to not exercising the jurisdiction that is vested with the Trial Court.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the Interlocutory Application was filed in the year 2022 seeking for interim injunction. If there was real urgency for the petitioners for getting an interim order and the Trial Court was not taking
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
up the application, the petitioners could have knocked the doors of this Court and sought for a direction for disposal of the Interlocutory Application. The fact that everybody was keeping quite till 2026 in an Interlocutory Application that was filed in the year 2022, shows that there is no real urgency involved in this application.
6. The Trial court has taken into consideration the fact that the suit is of the year 2022 and the suit has reached the stage of trial and therefore, the Court can focus its attention on the disposal of the main suit rather than wasting time with the Interlocutory Application. This approach of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or capricious. Ultimately, the final relief of the petitioners/plaintiffs lies only in the main suit and the fact that nothing adverse has happened for nearly four years, has led the Trial Court to dispose of the application, stating that the main suit can be taken up for hearing.
7. The petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Order XLIII of C.P.C. However, they have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the Trial Court has refused to exercise this jurisdiction properly while dealing with the application.
8. As already held supra, this Court does not find any fault in the approach made by the Trial Court and the Trial Court has rightly held that the focus can
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
be shifted to the disposal of the main suit which was filed in the year 2022.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the order dated 23.07.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in OS.No.170 of 2022 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, Thiruvallur District, is sustained and there shall be a direction to the Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, Thiruvallur District, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.170 of 2022, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSR
CRP No. 6136 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. SSR To The Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, Thiruvallur District. CRP No. 6136 of 2026 01-10-2026