CRP/6130/2026 of Ratna Priya Vs Priya Diagnostics and Ultra Sound Centre Private L on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in CMA.No. 6 of 2025, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur dated 16.06.2026, confirming the order passed in IA.No.2 of 2025, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sholinganallur, dated 23.04.2025, wherein the order of interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff came to be confirmed in the appeal.

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

3. The respondent is the plaintiff who filed the suit in OS.No.22 of 2025, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

4. Along with the suit, IA.No.2 of 2025, came to be filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking for the relief of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The learned District Munsif, Sholinganallur, by an order dated 23.04.2025 granted an order of interim injunction. Aggrieved by

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:10:08 pm )

CRP No. 6130 of 2026 the same, the petitioners/defendants filed CMA No. 6 of 2025, before the Sub Court, Alandur. The Sub Court, Alandur, by an order dated 16.6.2026 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned District Munsif. Sholinganallur. Aggrieved by the same, the present CRP has been filed before this Court.

5. The main ground that was raised on the side of the petitioners is that the license stands in the name of OMR Priya Diagnostic Centre Private Limited and whereas it is being run by the plaintiff who does not possess any licence in their name. That apart, the equipments inside the property also belongs to the defendants and it is being illegally utilised by the plaintiff. In the light of this conduct on the part of the plaintiff, they are not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction.

6. There are two aspects to the facts of the present case. The first is the issue of license and the second is as to who is running the business. Insofar as license issue is concerned, the specific case of the petitioners is that the license stands in the name of OMR Priya Diagnostic Centre Private Limited and the plaintiff does not have any license. In this regard, already orders have been passed in the writ petition where a competent authority has been directed to enquire whether Priya Diagnostic and Ultrasound Centre Pvt. Ltd., possess a valid license under the PCPNDT Act, 1994 and if they do not possess a valid

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:10:08 pm )

CRP No. 6130 of 2026 license, the Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services has been directed to close down the establishment. A time frame was also fixed by this Court in WP.No.14989 of 2026 by order dated 16.4.2026. This order will sufficiently take care of the grievance expressed by the petitioners insofar as running the Priya Diagnostic and Ultrasound Centre Pvt. Ltd., without a license.

7. The second issue pertains to the equipments being utilised by the plaintiff that belongs to the petitioners/defendants. The other connected grievance is that if in case of any illegality committed by the plaintiff, the authorities will proceed with the penal action only as against the petitioners since the license stands in the name of OMR Priya Diagnostic Centre Private Limited .

8. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the plaintiff is illegally utilising the equipments of petitioners while running the Diagnostic Centre, the petitioners will have to independently institute proceedings seeking for compensation/damages/mandatory injunction etc. That issue cannot be gone into in the present CRP. Therefore, if the petitioners are so advised they can independently proceed further and seek for the appropriate remedy.

9. Insofar as the penal consequences that may fall on the petitioners, admittedly the Centre is being run by the plaintiff and if any illegality is

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:10:08 pm )

CRP No. 6130 of 2026 committed, it is only the plaintiff who has to suffer the consequences. There is no question of invoking penal proceedings against the petitioners vicariously for an act done by the plaintiff.

10. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any perversity in the order passed by both the Courts below and both the Courts have taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff is running the Diagnostic Centre and therefore passed an order of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit and the same need not be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

11. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30-09-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp To Subordinate Judge, Alandur.

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:10:08 pm )

CRP No. 6130 of 2026

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:10:08 pm )

CRP No. 6130 of 2026 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 6130 of 2026

30-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 05/10/2026 05:10:08 pm )