G V RAMESH Vs. P MUNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation for the respondent and the respondent is also called absent.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.07.2013 made in I.A. Nos.5653 & 5654 of 2013 in O.S. Nos.12021 & 12022 of 2010 respectively on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(3.) It is seen that the suit was filed by the respondent herein originally in C.S. No.433 of 2002 before the original side of this Court seeking a decree to declare that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioners who were defendants in the suit by one Perumal Naidu before the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet, Chennai, registered as document No.188 dated 22.02.2002 as null and void and not binding on the respondent/plaintiff and also consequential injunction. However, another suit was filed by the petitioners herein in C.S. No.650 of 2003 before the original side of this Court seeking a decree to declare that the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule of property and consequently direct the defendant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises and to direct the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from 22.02.2002 till date of filing of the suit and further damages at Rs.5,000/- p.m. till date of delivery of vacant possession with interest at 18% per annum and permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.