R. GANAPATHY Vs. M. KAMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A resume of the germane facts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.201 of 2012 seeking the following reliefs of permanent injunctions such as

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there are two defendants in the suit, but without rhyme or any reason, the plaintiff arrayed only the first defendant-Chithra as the respondent in the injunction application and that is purely for the purpose of dis-entitling the second defendant-Ganapathy from effectively resisting the said injunction application. Accordingly, he would pray for setting aside the order of the Lower Court and for allowing the I.A.No.448 of 2012.

(3.) WHEREAS , the learned counsel for the second respondent, would vehemently oppose the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: The plaintiff and the second defendant are colluding with each other. In fact, D1-Chithra has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there is a pucca construction in existence thereon. The prayer in the suit is vague as vagueness could be and it cannot be digested by any standard. Admittedly, D1-Chithra is in possession and in such a case, the plaintiff did chose to array Chithra as respondent in the injunction application. It is not the case of D2 that he has been in possession and that interim injunction was granted as against him. In such a case, absolutely there is no merit in this revision.