Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

M/s.madura Travels Services Pvt.ltd v. B.munira Begum And Ors

M/s.madura Travels Services Pvt.ltd v. B.munira Begum And Ors

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

C.M.A.Nos.2081 & 2094 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.7902 & 7903 of 2019 | 30-03-2021

1. The Common judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed in I.A.Nos.9677 & 9678 of 2017 in O.S.No.6120 of 2016 are under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

2. The plaintiff is the appellant and the suit was instituted for Specific Performance. Two Interlocutory Applications were filed. One for grant of interim mandatory injunction. Both the Interlocutory Applications were adjudicated by the trial Court. The Trial Court found that no prima facie case has been made out and accordingly, dismissed the Interlocutory Applications, against which, two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in C.M.P.Nos.7902 & 7903 of 2019 are filed. During the pendency of the appeals, this Court passed an order on 02.04.2019, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises and file the report before the High Court. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Advocate Commissioner also filed a report.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that they will file the report of the Advocate Commissioner before the trial Court for further adjudication on the issues.

4. As far as the appeals are concerned, the suit was initially filed in the year 2000 and the same was re-numbered in the year 2016 and the Interlocutory Applications were filed in the year 2017 and a common judgment was passed on 10th September 2018 in the Interlocutory Applications. Thus, the suit is pending for the past about 20 years without any interim orders.

5. In view of the fact that the suit is pending without any interim order, this Court is not inclined to grant further relief and all the issues are to be adjudicated in the suit by the respective parties. In view of the fact that the suit itself is pending for about 20 years, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possibly and within a period of 10 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties to the suit are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds. Adjournments if sought in a routine manner, the Court has to reject the same in limine and the parties are bound to cooperate for the early disposal of the suit. Even an adjournment on genuine ground is to be granted by recording reasons.

6. In this view of the matter, the Common judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed in I.A.Nos.9677 & 9678 of 2017 in O.S.No.6120 of 2016 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.2081 and 2094 of 2019 stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Advocate List

  • Mr.R.Parthasarathy [in both CMAs]

  • Mr.S.Hussain Afroze [in both CMAs] Mr.C.Ajith Kumar Advocate Commissioner

Bench
  • HON'BLE&nbsp
  • MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Eq Citations
  • LQ/MadHC/2021/3705
Head Note

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 — Specific Performance — Suit for — Interlocutory Applications for grant of interim mandatory injunction — Dismissed by trial Court — Appeals filed — Advocate Commissioner appointed by High Court to inspect premises and file report — Report filed — Held, suit pending for past 20 years without any interim orders — No further relief granted — All issues to be adjudicated in suit by respective parties — Trial Court directed to dispose of suit expeditiously within 10 months — Parties directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments — Adjournments, if sought in routine manner, to be rejected in limine — Even adjournment on genuine ground to be granted by recording reasons — Appeals dismissed.