SIGRID AGARWAL Vs. ANJAPPAR CHETTINAD RESTAURANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22. 1. 2003 rejecting the unnumbered execution petition of 2002 in I.A. No. 20612 of 2001 in O.S. No. 6980 of 2001 on the file of XVI Asst City Civil court, Madras. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) IT is seen that pending consideration of the suit, the petitioner herein prayed for an interim injunction restraining the defendant in any manner interfering the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the common area an also access to the exclusive car park of the petitioner. By order 6. 12. 2001, the Court below, satisfied of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner, granted an interim injunction by order dated 20. 12. 2001 and directed compliance of Order 29 Rule 3, C. P. C.

(3.) THE learned counsel further referred to the provisions contained in Order XXI Rule 32, C. P. C. and Order 31 Rule 3a, C. P. C. , to contend that the decree holder has a choice to take recourse either under Order XXI rule 32, C. P. C. or under Order XXXIX Rule 3a, C. P. C. He submitted that while under Order XXI Rule 32, C. P. C. , consequences are civil in nature, the consequences under Order XXXIX Rule 3a, C. P. C. are punitive. In these circumstances, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order and to direct the Court below to proceed further with the petition filed.