N.ANNAPOORNA Vs. P.VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the applicant before the learned single Judge. Two applications, viz., Application Nos.1044 and 1045 of 2010 have been filed by the appellant, [i] seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with the suit schedule property in any manner, including by way of sale, mortgage, lease or any other mode, and [ii] seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the rights of the tenants, who are said to have been inducted by the appellant. The appellant has also filed two more applications in Application Nos.2963 and 2964 of 2012 [i] seeking a direction against the 1st respondent to produce a copy of the passport and the copy of the memo of compromise recorded in the decree, dated 29.3.1993, passed in OS No.9686 of 1992 by the XIth Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, and [ii] to permit the appellant to produce the certified copy of the judgment dated 29.3.1993 and the certified copy of the partition deed dated 8.4.1996 executed between the 1st respondent and one P.Rajeswari, which was registered as document No.1176 before the Sub Registrar, Kancheepuram.

(2.) THE learned single Judge, by a common order, dismissed the applications filed in OA No.549 of 2012 and 550 of 2012, which were filed seeking extension of the interim orders granted already in OA Nos.1044 and 1045 of 2010, besides dismissing OA Nos.1044 and 1045 of 2010 and Application Nos.2963 and 2964 of 2012, respectively. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge passed in OA No.549 of 2012 and Application Nos.2963 and 2964 of 2012, the present appeals have been filed. It is seen that the appellant has not filed any appeal against the order of the learned single Judge passed in O.A.No.550 of 2012.

(3.) WHEN the matter is taken up today, a counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to the effect that the respondents would not alienate or encumber the suit property. The undertaking given in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is hereby recorded and accordingly, in view of the said undertaking, OSA No.29 of 2013 is closed. In view of the order passed in OSA No.29 of 2013, we are of the view that there is no necessity to pass orders in OA.No.1044 of 2012. Therefore, the said application is also closed in view of the undertaking given by the respondents to the effect that they would not alienate or encumber the suit property, pending disposal of the suit.