PALANIYAMMAL Vs. SELLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition No.39 of 2004 is filed against the order made by the Court below in I.A.No.647 of 2001 in O.S.No.261 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Kulithalai, granting interim injunction on the ground of respondents 1 to 4 did not file counter and their application for extension of time to file counter had been dismissed.

(2.) THERESPONDENT/plaintiffs sought for interim maintenance alleging that the first plaintiff purchased an 1.28.1/4 acres out of Ac.2.57 and another acre was purchased by his son-in-law the second plaintiff from one Vangalayee Ammal, which his described in ?A? schedule property. The plaintiffs alleged that they were cultivating jointly the said lands that ?B? schedule property is the only access for the plaintiffs to reach ?A? schedule property as the cart pathway and since the defendants prevented them from using the ?B? schedule property to reach ?A? schedule property, they have filed the suit for permanent injunction; that in the counter filed by the third respondent they contended that there is no property at all as described in the ?B? schedule property and the petitioners are only attempting to create some cart track, which is not in vogue; that if injunction is granted, the respondents will be put to great hardship and as such, the interim application may be dismissed.

(3.) WITH regard to the mandatory injunction, it is seen that even before evidence is let in when the parties have given their version as to the granting or rejecting the mandatory injunction hasty conclusions have been arrived at by its slip-shod order. It is well settled law that mandatory injunction can be granted only after full trial test it would amount deciding the very suit in the petition. Hence, the order of the Court below is to be set aside.