1 for the relief of injunction, since Respondent No.
The Appellant resultantly lodged the first information before the police and a crime came to be registered against Respondent No.
186 of 2016 the Respondents herein , wherein the suit for damages filed by the Appellant herein had been decreed by the Signature Not Verified First Additional District Judge, Madurai, vide order dated Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.10.18 102019 IST Reason 03.04.2018.
186 of 2016.
The Appellants father filed O.S. No.
Though an order for maintaining the status quo was passed in the said suit, Respondent No.
Though it was held that the suit was number bad for number joinder of necessary parties and was number prematurely filed, the decree was set aside solely based on the finding that the suit was number maintainable.
Respondent Nos.
1 companypleted his companystruction regardless.
73,000/ on medical expenses for his injured employees, and subsequently filed O.S. No.
18,28,941/ with interest at the rate of 9 p.a.
1, who later further damaged the show case glass at the Appellants hotel by pelting stones at it and damaged its automatic glass door by driving a car into the hotel.
1 lac.
1 had started putting up a companystruction in front of the Appellants property obstructing free access to the property of the Appellants father.
from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, with proportionate companyts.
2.27 lacs.
2 and 3 trespassed into the hotel and took away cash of more than Rs.
The Appellant spent Rs.
1, along with some henchmen, damaged certain companystruction materials on the Appellants property, causing damage to the tune of Rs.
The maintainability of the suit was number an issue before the Trial Court.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
3.2 The Trial Court decreed the suit, i.e. O.S. No.
The instant appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in A.S. M.D. No.
143 of 2018 allowing the appeal filed by the unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No.
Later, aggrieved by the filing of the suit, Respondent No.
Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.
In this respect, the brief facts of the case as alleged by the Appellant are as follows 3.1 The Appellant runs a hotel at Madurai.
He had purchased a plot of land adjacent to a plot owned by his father, where he started companystruction in 2014.
783 of 2014 against Respondent No.
