RAJIV NAIDU v. V.RADHA KRISHNAN

üITEM NO.37 COURT NO.3 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPetition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).13789-13790/2013(From the judgement and order dated 20/12/2012 in CMA No.3163/2010 and CRPNo.4368/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF MADRAS)RAJIV NAIDU Petitioner(s) VERSUSV.RADHA KRISHNAN & ORS Respondent(s)(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and with prayer for interimrelief)Date: 18/04/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHARAD ARVIND BOBDEFor Petitioner(s) Mr.L.Nageshwar Rao, Sr.Adv. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, Adv. Mr.Mani Shankar, Adv. Ms.Neha Agarwal, Adv. Mr.Varun Tandan, Adv.For Respondent(s) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R These petitions are directed against order dated 20.12.2012passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court inC.M.A.No.3163 of 2010 and C.R.P.(PD) No.4368 of 2010 dismissing the appealfiled for vacating the ad interim order passed by the trial Court and alsothe revision filed for rejection of the plaint. We have heard Shri L.Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel forthe petitioner and perused the record. In our view, the impugned order does not suffer from any legalinfirmity insofar as it relates to dismissal of the appeal filed by thepetitioner against the ex-parte injunction granted by the trial Court.However, we feel that the observations made by the learned Single Judge onthe merits of the prayer made by the petitioner for rejection of the plaintare not warranted. The learned Single Judge should have, instead ofdeciding the application on merits, relegated the petitioner to the remedyof filing an appropriate application in the suit before the trial Court. In view of the above, the special leave petition is dismissedqua the petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of C.M.A.No.3163 of 2010.Qua the order passed in C.R.P. (PD) No.4368 of 2010, the special leavepetition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file anappropriate application in the pending suit with a direction that the trialCourt shall consider and decide the same totally uninfluenced by theobservations made in paragraph 5 of the order under challenge. (Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora) Court Master Court Master