M E SINGARAVELU MUDALI Vs. BALASUBRAMANIA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition praying for an injunction restraining the respondent from executing the decree in O.S. No. 41 of 1924 on the file of the District Court of South Arcot pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition No. 1372 of 1925 on the file of the High Court. The facts are as follows: There was a suit for partition in the Sub-Court of Chingleput. This was O.S. No. 3 of 1916. On the 6 of March, 1917, a preliminary decree was passed in it. The present petitioner was one of the plaintiffs in it. After the preliminary decree, the 3 defendant in the suit filed O.S. No. 41 of 1921 in the District Court of South Arcot at Cuddalore to recover a sum of money from the petitioner and others. The disputes between the parties were settled by a compromise drawn up in the form of two agreements dated 6 October 1922, according to one of which a decree was to be passed in the Cuddalore suit for Rs. 9,000, Rs. 2,000 of which was to be paid within two weeks and the balance in 9 months. Under the other it was arranged that a fresh allotment of the property should be made in the final decree at Chingleput in such a way as to cover the payment of Rs, 7,000 to the decree-holder in the South Arcot suit.

(2.) Accordingly a decree was passed in the Cuddalore Court for Rs. 9,000 and the amount which had to be paid within two weeks after the decree was also paid. What remained to be done was that the re-allotment of the properties in the Chingleput Court was to be made and when this was brought to the notice of the Cuddalore Court the Cuddalore Court had to enter satisfaction of the money decree. Obviously, the provision for the payment of the balance of the Cuddalore decree was a surplusage as the decree was intended to be satisfied by re- allotment of properties. On the 12 of July 1923, an application to record the compromise was filed in the Chingleput Court; but this petition was overlooked and a decree was passed in pursuance of the original preliminary decree--the petitioner applied on that very day to make the necessary corrections in the decree but it could not be ordered as the respondent was absent. Afterwards respondent appeared and opposed the passing of the decree, but the Subordinate Judge after full enquiry passed an order in favour of the petitioner. On appeal to the District Judge-I doubt if any appeal lay to the District Judge against the order allowing the amendment as the respondent's remedy would be to appeal against the amended decree -- the District Judge found all points in favour of the petitioner but allowed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner's remedy was to bring a fresh suit.

(3.) A Civil Revision Petition, has been filed against the District Judge's order on the ground among other grounds that the District Judge bad no jurisdiction to pass the order he has passed. The Revision Petition has been admitted by Wallace, J., who also ordered notice on the petition for injunction. This petition for injunction now comes on before me for final disposal. As I think there are good grounds in the revision petition I am inclined to issue an injunction provided I have got the power to do so. The respondent contends that I have no power,