Search Judgments

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 8 & Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 115 – This civil revision petition was filed against the order of the Sub Court, Kulithalai, which dismissed an interlocutory application (I.A) seeking the appointment of an advocate commissioner to sell packaged drinking water bottles. The plaintiff, a licensed packaged drinking water unit, claimed the defendants, their dealers, owed them money and refused to lift packaged bottles made as per their specifications.

The lower court dismissed the I.A, stating a lack of evidence of an agreement and uncertainty regarding the bottles’ filling and expiry dates. The respondent raised a preliminary objection based on Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, arguing against the maintainability of the civil revision petition due to the bar against revisions against interlocutory orders.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 23 Rule 1-A – This civil revision petition challenges the order dismissing I.A.No.4 of 2022 in O.S.No.670 of 2004, filed by the revision petitioner (second defendant) seeking transposition as plaintiff in the suit. The original suit was filed by Thangaraj for permanent injunction against Raja @ Pandiarajan, later amended to include mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The revision petitioner, a trust, claims ownership of the suit property and asserts that the plaintiff is their tenant.

The lower court rejected the transposition request, stating it didn’t fall under Order XXIII Rule 1-A of CPC, emphasizing conditions like plaintiff’s withdrawal, shared stance between defendant and plaintiff, and a substantial question against co-defendants.

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 76 and 77 – This case involves a Writ Appeal against the order of a Single Judge, who dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash the order of the District Registrar (1st respondent) and direct reconsideration of the appellant’s appeal regarding the registration of a sale deed.

The appellant had purchased land from Mrs. S. Renukadevi, but the Sub-Registrar refused to register the deed due to a claim by the Nemili Arulmigu Alavanthar Naicker Charity Trust (2nd respondent).

Constitution of India Article 226 – This case originates from a dispute involving a petroleum retail outlet initially established as a sole proprietorship under the name “Kannappan Enterprises” with a dealership agreement with Reliance Industries Ltd. Later, it was converted into a partnership firm, with the petitioner’s parents being inducted as partners and subsequently retiring. Disputes arose between the petitioner and the parents, leading to the supplier, M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited, stopping the supply of petroleum products.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to direct M/s.Reliance BP Mobility Limited to resume the supply.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order VI Rule 17 – This Civil Revision Petition challenges an order passed by the Additional District Munsif, Valliyoor, dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2016. The Revision Petitioner, plaintiff in O.S.No.80 of 2016, sought to amend the plaint to include a prayer declaring a release deed dated 05.04.2011 as not binding.

The trial court rejected the application, stating that the petitioner was aware of the release deed since it was marked as evidence (Ex-A8) during the cross-examination of PW-1, and that the application was filed with inordinate delay, thus barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Rajkumar Gurawara vs S.K.Sarwagi and Company (P) Limited regarding the conditions under which amendment applications can be rejected.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order III Rule 2 – This civil revision petition contests the order issued by the II Additional Subordinate Judge at Kancheepuram, pertaining to I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2020. The original suit was filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration and related reliefs against the respondents (defendants 1 & 2).

Due to their advanced age and illness, the defendants appointed Mr.S.Mahesh Kumar as their power of attorney. He then filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 under Order III Rule 2 of the CPC, requesting permission to represent the 2nd defendant (his father) and submit a proof affidavit on his behalf.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 and 73 – This civil revision petition was filed by the plaintiff against the order of the I Additional District Munsif Court at Salem in O.S.No.252 of 2016, a suit for permanent injunction.

The plaintiff sought to compare her signature on the admitted sale deed (Ex.B1) with the signature on a disputed sale agreement (Ex.B2), alleging forgery, through an expert opinion. The defendant objected, arguing the time gap between the documents made comparison unreliable. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s application.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 8 – This case concerns a suit for permanent injunction regarding the right to cut and remove standing trees on land that the plaintiff had sold to the defendants via a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2004. The plaintiff argued that the sale deed only pertained to the land and not the trees, while the defendants claimed they purchased the land with all incidental rights, including the trees.

The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the decision. The High Court, in this second appeal, considered whether the sale of land automatically includes standing trees if not specifically excluded in the sale deed.

Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act – This case involves a Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants. The appellants sought to quash proceedings by the 1st respondent and direct the 5th respondent to change revenue records in their favor, concerning a property in Kancheepuram District.

The appellants claim co-ownership of the land, tracing their title back to 1905. Their claim was rejected, leading to the initial writ petition and subsequent appeal.

Transfer of Property Act 1882 Section 3 – This second appeal arises from a dispute over property rights in Puducherry. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking to declare a power of attorney (POA) deed as null and void, arguing that the executants (defendants 1-3) had no title to the property. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunctions to prevent interference with his possession and to restrain registration/patta transfer/electricity service connection in the name of the defendants.

The trial court dismissed the suit, citing a bar under the Pondicherry Settlement Act, 1970, and non-joinder of necessary parties.