2012 AIR CC 819 (MAD) ::AIR 2012 (NOC) (SUPP) 536 (MAD.)

Madras High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. Selvam , J

(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) O. 7, R. 3— Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S 39 — Defective plaint — Non-disclosure of proper description of construction in plaint — Suit for mandatory injunction for removal of construction put up by respondent — Proper description of suit property so as to identify same, not given in plaint — Plaint defective, for non-compliance of O 7, R 3 — However, suit liable to be dismissed {" As per Order 7, Rule 3 of CPC if a suit has been instituted in respect of an immovable property, concerned plaint should contain necessary description so as to identify same and further as per S. 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 a decree of mandatory injunction should be granted only when same is capable of being executed. In instant case, no proper description has been given with regard to alleged construction and only the alleged construction is suit property. But in plaint, it has been simply mentioned three survey numbers and its total extent, without mentioning construction alleged to have been put up by defendants, therefore, it is easily discernible that plaint filed in original suit does not contain proper description of suit property as contemplated under Order 7, Rule 3 of CPC. By way of eschewing defects which are in existence in plaint, even if a decree of mandatory injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff same cannot be executed nor enforced as contemplated under Section 39 of....