CRP/2573/2026 of M.Vijayakumar Vs M/s.Madras Concrete Products

CRP No. 2573 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V .THAMILSELVI CRP No. 2573 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10851 OF 2026 1. M.Vijayakumar S/o Munusamy, No 31, Sadaiyappa Vallal Street, East Ayanambakkam, Chennai 2. V .Selvakumar s/o.M.Vijaya Kumar Petitioner(s) Vs 1. M/s.Madras Concrete Products Rep by its Proprietor, Mahadevan, S/o Kabali, Survey No 185, Erikari Road, Kollacheri Village, Kundrathur, Chennai 600 069 2.The IDFC FIRST Bank Rep. by its Manager, Mogappair Branch, GR FLR, Block No.2/PC-8, Kamber Salai, Mogappair West, Chennai. 3.ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Vanagaram Branch, Shop No..1 Guru Brindavan Garden, Vanagaram, Ambattur Main Road, chennai 600 095. Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2573 of 2026 CRP No. 2573 of 2026 PRAYER To set aside the docket order in IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.138 of 2026 on the file of the Addl.Dist.Munsif Court, Poonamallee, dated 07-04-2026 CRP No. 2573 of 2026 For Petitioner(s): MR.OM PRAKASH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondent(s): ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the docket order in IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.138 of 2026 on the file of the Additional District. Munsif Court, Poonamallee. 2. The petitioners herein filed IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.138 of 2026 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, seeking orde r of interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent, his men, agents, servants, representatives, or any person claiming through or under him, from in any manner interfering with, obstructing, or disturbing the peaceful use ope ration, movement, and deployment of the vehicle as mentioned in the plaint schedul e by the petitioner, pending disposal of suit. In the said application, t he Trial Court issued notice to the respondent and posted the matter on 09.07.2026. Challenging the docket order the petitioners filed this Civil Revision Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2573 of 2026 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the subject matter of suit property in OS No. 138 of 2025 is 25 Vehicles(16-Tipper Vehicles, 2 – L& T Roller, Grader, JCB, Leeboy Grader, BMW, Wolkdswogan, Porsche, Swift cars) and 1 st respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner and the 1 st respondent entered into business agreement, under which, the 1 st respondent purchased the vehicle in his name and handed over to the petitioners for business purposes and entire sale consideration has to be paid by the petitioners. But on contrary to the terms of the agreement entered between them, the 1 st respondent attempted to illegally take over the above said vehicles though the petitioners paid EMI to the above vehicles.. Hence, the petitioners a pproached the Court for the relief of Permanent injunction with other consequenti al relief. While so, the petitioners filed IA.No.3 of 2026 in OS.No.138 of 2026 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, seeking interim injunction. However, without considering the prima facie material on the side of the petitioners, the trial court simply adjourned the matter to 09.07.2026. If at the vehicle has been seized or taken over by the 1 st respondent, it would cause hardship to the petitioners. To substantiate his claim, the learned counsel relied on the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Zenit Mataplast (P) LTD Vs. State of Maharashtra reported 2009 10 SCC 385 23. Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed as a temporary arrangemen t to preserve the status quo https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2573 of 2026 till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the mat ter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. T he object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. ( vide Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. State of Assam vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2367; and Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694) 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Considering the fact that the subject matter of the suit propert y is 25 vehicles. If the vehicle is removed or taken oven by the respondent it would put too much hardship to the petitioners. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A within a period 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order. Further, till the disposal of I.A status quo is ordered to be maintained. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No Costs. Pending miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed. 27-04-2026 pbl Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To 1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. 2. The Section officer, V . R Section, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 2573 of 2026 T.V .THAMILSELVI J. pbl CRP No. 2573 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 10851 OF 2026 27-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis