THANISLAS Vs. VIJAYA PERUMAL, JANARTHANA PRASAD AND PADMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the above revision to set aside the order made in C.M.A. No. 1 of 2011 dated 21.04.2011 on the file of the District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in confirming the order made in I.A. No. 389 of 2010 dated 10.12.2010 in O.S. No. 50 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) Mr. M. Kalyanasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the revision Petitioner argued that as per sale agreement dated 06.03.2009, the suit property was delivered to the revision Petitioner after receiving major sale consideration i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- out of a total sale consideration i.e., a sum of Rs. 1,87,600/-. As such, the interim application which has been filed by the Defendants is not maintainable. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned Judges of the Courts below have not well considered the three principles namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Without considering these aspects, the interim injunction granted by the learned trial Judge is not sustainable in law. The same principles have not been discussed by the learned appellate Judge, namely, District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. The Learned Counsel further argued that the whole case has arisen on the basis of the sale agreement which is a vital document, in which there is a contention that the suit property was delivered to the Plaintiff on the date of agreement i.e, 06.03.2009. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the said property is being enjoyed by the Plaintiff from the date of sale agreement. As such, the interim order granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai is not maintainable.