S I THOMAS Vs. BALARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against an order dated 26.04.2012 of the learned IV th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, made in I.A. No: 3302 of 2012 in O.S. No: 1269 of 2012. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit and they filed a suit for declaration namely,

(2.) PLAINTIFFS also filed an interlocutory application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. The 17th respondent has filed his counter on 27.02.2012. The Trial Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and issued notice to the respondents and granted an interim direction not to create any encumbrance or alienation or alteration in respect of "A" Schedule property and also directed that affidavit of service has to be filed on or before 08.03.2012. Thereafter, the matter has been taken up on 08.03.2012, 16.03.2012, 21.03.2012, 30.03.2012 and on 12.04.2012. On that day, I.A. No: 5955 of 2012 an advance hearing petition was allowed. Thereafter, the matter has been listed on 16.04.2012 for the counter of R.1. Then again, on 17.04.2012, the matter has been taken up and adjourned. On 19.04.2012, the trial Court heard the counsel for the parties and noted that as there was sufficient time given and even then there was no representation for R.1 and, therefore, R.1 was set exparte. Matter was posted to 20.04.2012. On that day, counsel for R.2 to R.9 undertook to file vakalat. Injunction was granted against R.17 only. Interim order already granted is extended. Thereafter, on 23.04.2012, petitioners / plaintiffs filed a petition for re-opening and a third party also filed impleading petition. The matter stands posted on 24.04.2012 and interim order already granted has been extended. Then on 24.04.2012, the matter has been ordered to be called on 25.04.2012; interim order extended and similarly, on 25.04.2012 taking note of the fact that I.A. No: 6566 of 2012 is pending the matter has been posted to 26.04.2012 with extension of interim order. Then, on 26.04.2012, the trial Court passed an order to the effect that,

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. G. Ethirajulu learned counsel appearing for the 17th respondent would state that the trial Court heard the counsel appearing on both sides and then passed the impugned order as the impleading petition as well as the contempt petition are pending. Such an order passed, after considering the issue in question, cannot be set aside.