VIJAYARAJARATHINAM Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision petition, filed by the 1st defendant in OS. No. 6515 of 1994 on the file of VIII Asst. City Civil Court, Madras notice of motion was ordered on 15.9.1995 and the 1st respondent- plaintiff is represented by Counsel. No doubt, it appears that the 2nd Defendant-2nd respondent has not entered appearance. But, since the 1st respondent-plaintiff alone is the contending respondent, the civil revision petition was taken up for hearing and learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent were heard.

(2.) THE Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order passed in I.A No. 15247 of 1994 filed by the petitioner herein to vacate the order of interim injunction granted in IA. No. 14577 of 1994 in the said suit. The said suit filed by the 1st respondent is for a declaration that the plaintiff is the tenant of the suit property and for consequential injunction, restraining the defendants from enforcing the eviction order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 474 of 1989. Similar temporary injunction pending disposal of the said suit was granted in the abovesaid I.A. No. 14577 of 1994 and only to vacate the same, the abovesaid I.A. No. 15247 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner herein. But, the said I.A. was dismissed. Against the dismissal, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A. No. 4 of 1995. The Lower Appellate Court in the said C.M.A. after concluding that the temporary injunction granted is justified, directed the trial court by order dated 18.7.1995 to dispose of the suit itself within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said appellate order. Aggrieved by the abovesaid concurrent order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the present suit itself is not maintainable and if at all, the 1st respondent could only pursue the above referred to rent control appeal filed by him against the order dated 30.4.1992 in M.P. No. 974 of 1990 and for this proposition he also relies on the decision of Fathima Automobiles v. P.K.P. Nair, 1984 TLMJ 368 and that hence the temporary injunction order passed in I.A. No. 14577 of 1994 is also non-est and the Courts below here grossly erred in refusing to vacate the said order in the abovesaid I.A. No. 15247 of 1994 and in the subsequent C.M.A. No 4 of 1995. Regarding this non-maintainability of the abovesaid petitions, learned counsel for the 1st respondent could not argue anything contra and he was only submitting that his revision petition itself would not lie under Section 113. C.P.C.