R. SHANMUGHAVELU PILLAI Vs. R. KARUPPANNAN AMBALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in an unfiled plaint No. -/74 (A. 2394/74) on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk at Madurai has preferred the above revision petition against an order rejecting the plaint on 9th April 1974.

(2.) THE petitioner herein as plaintiff claimed damages for Rs. 2,250 for three crops from the suit land for the period from 15 -7 -1972 to 15 -9 -1973. The suit land was also the subject -matter of the suit in O.S. No. 358 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk at Madurai. It was a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff obtained interim injunction on 24 -7 -1972, and the order was served on the defendant on 26 -7 - 1972. After full trial, the suit in O.S. No. 358 of 1972 was decreed ordering permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff has pleaded in that suit that he was in possession of the suit lands on the date of the filing of the suit and the decree was passed on 29 -9 -1973. It is for the same period the plaintiff in the unnumbered suit claimed damages as stated above. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has been restrained from entering into the suit land from 24 -7 -1972 to 29 -9 -1973. The defendant obstructed the plaintiff from enjoying the suit land. The trial court observing that the plaintiff never complained that he was dispossessed by the defendant for the relevant period that inasmuch as the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property from the date of taking delivery, the suit for damages for three crops is not maintainable, and that the plaintiff cannot claim damages by way of mesne profits from the defendant against whom a decree for permanent injunction was in force during the relevant period held the plaint is not maintainable. On these grounds the trial court rejected the plaint ordering the court -fee paid on the plaint be refunded.

(3.) MR . Velusamy the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the High Court under the powers vested in it in Section 115, Civil P. C., can always correct the errors committed by the trial court. The learned counsel also submitted that this court having entertained the revision petition, has ample jurisdiction to revise the order made by the trial court. The learned counsel further contended that no appeal will lie to the High Court and as such there is no bar for this court to entertain the revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil P. C.