VIRUGAMBAKKAM Vs. P.T. METILDA PREMA DEVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per order passed in the Review Application in Rev.Apln.No. 190 of 2013, dated 21.11.2014, the order, dated 18.09.2013 passed in C.R.P (PD).No. 2477 of 2013 is set aside and the Revision Petition is restored to file and having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel for either side, fresh order is being passed in this Civil Revision Petition on merits.

(2.) IT is seen that the Civil Revision has been preferred by M/s. Sivapriya Constructions, the revision petitioner herein under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.06.2013 made in C.M.A.No. 13 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 02.03.2013 made in I.A.No. 66 of 2013 in O.S.No. 26 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee.

(3.) MR .AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit filed in O.S.No. 26 of 2013 itself is not legally maintainable, since the main relief sought for in the suit is only an interim relief, pertaining to another suit in O.S.No. 270 of 2012 filed by the same party. The suit in O.S.No. 270 of 2012 was filed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit. However, the revision petitioner herein was not arrayed as one of the defendants in the suit. The relief of declaration sought for in the other suit is to declare that a registered Will, dated 11.03.1991 executed by late Paul Thangadurai, father of the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the defendants 2, 3 and 5 to 7, as per Document No. 16/1991 on the file of the Sub -Registrar, Poonamallee, as null and void and also consequential permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 therein, their men, agents etc., from in any manner interfering and disturbing with the alleged possession and enjoyment of the property by the respondents 1 to 3 herein, though it was contended on behalf of the Revision petitioner, that the respondents 1 to 3 were not in possession and enjoyment of the property, on the date of filing of the suit.