1. This Civil Revision Petition challenges the judgment dated 7 November 2013 in C.M.A.No.8 of 2013, dismissing the appeal filed against the
order in I.A.No.103 of 2013 in O.S.No.35 of 2013, directing the parties to maintain status quo during the currency of the original suit.
2. The respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.35 of 2013 before the District Munsif at Poonamallee, for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner
from interfering with their fish business ""Vaanagaram Fish Market"" located in the suit schedule properties.
3. Before the Trial Court, the respondents contended that after taking land from the petitioner on lease, the first respondent constructed shops for
selling fish. Subsequently, the second respondent filed a suit for partition against the petitioner in O.S.No.101 of 2011 before the Principal District
Court, Thiruvallur. The relationship of the parties strained thereafter. The petitioner started interfering in the business conducted by the first
respondent. The petitioner collected exorbitant amount from the trucks carrying fish into the fish market. This made the respondents to file the suit
for injunction.
4. The respondents filed an application in I.A.No.103 of 2013 for temporary injunction. The application was opposed by the petitioner. The
learned Trial Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo. The order was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent has already filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.20203
of 2013 before this Court in connection with the fish business. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Trial Court, without considering the
prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, directed the parties to maintain status quo. The First Appellate Court, without
considering the related facts upheld the said order. The learned Senior Counsel contended that there is no case made out by the respondents for
grant of an interim order to maintain status quo.
6. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.
7. The respondents filed application in I.A.No.103 of 2013 in O.S.No.35 of 2013 to restrain the petitioner from interfering with their fish business
conducted in the petition schedule property. Before the Trial Court, the first respondent contended that the petitioner has been making all sorts of
hindrance in his business and is trying to evict him from the market premises. The petitioner, in the counter affidavit contended that the fish market
was developed by him spending considerable amount. The fish market was established with the permission of the statutory authorities.
8. Since it was an application for temporary injunction, the Trial Court was expected to consider the prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable injury. The Trial Court considered the voluminous documents produced by the respondents and arrived at a prima facie finding that the
respondents have been carrying on fish business in the schedule property. It is true that the petitioner disputed the documents produced by the
respondents. The learned Trial Judge observed that the genuineness of those documents can be considered only during the course of trial. The first
respondent has produced string of documents to show that he has been doing business and that he has been receiving fish from various places and
the same was transported to Vaanagaram Fish Market. The petitioner has not produced any material to arrive at a finding that the respondents
projected a false case.
9. The order passed by the Trial Court was once again considered by the First Appellate court. The learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee
considered the documents and pleadings and concurred with the prima facie finding given by the learned Trial Judge in I.A.No.103 of 2013.
10. The petitioner wanted this Court to set aside the findings given against him by the two Courts below. The documents available on record and
the pleadings would support the case of the respondents. It is not as if there were no materials before the Trial Court to arrive at a prima face
finding that the first respondent has been doing business in fish and the same should be protected during the currency of the civil suit. There is no
question of re-appreciating the materials considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court for the purpose of arriving at a different
conclusion. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited. It is not open to this Court to act like an Appellate Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. The fact that the first respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in public interest would not be a valid ground to set aside the well
considered order passed by the Trial Court, which was later confirmed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge. I am therefore of the view that there is
absolutely no merit in the contention taken by the petitioner.
12. In the up shot, I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
