Pulankinar Holdings Pvt. Ltd v. L. Alagappa Chettiyar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.Nos.7904 & 7905 of 2026 Pulankinar Holdings Pvt. Ltd Rep by its Director R. Jagadish Chandran, Registered Office, 245, ATD St, Race Courses, Coimbatore 641 018. ..Petitioner(s) in both C.R.Ps. Vs

1.L. Alagappa Chettiyar S/o. Periya Karuppan Chettiyar, D.No.19, Golden View, Right House, Rajarajeswari Estate, Mullai Nagar, P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore 641 041.

2.L.P. AL. Muthiah S/o. L. Alagappa Chettiyar, D.No.19, Golden View, Right House, Rajarajeswari Estate, Mullai Nagar, P.N. Pudur, Coimbatore 641 041. ..Respondent(s)in both C.R.Ps. PRAYER in CRP.No.1727 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Docket Order dated Page1 of 4

27.01.2026 made in IA No.2 of 2026 in OS No.99 of 2026 on the file of Passed by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. PRAYER in CRP.No.1728 of 2026: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the docket order dt. 27.02.2026 made in I.A. No. 3 of 2026 in OS No. 99 of 2026 on the file of Passed by the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. For Petitioner(s): MR.S.MUKUNTH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent(s): MR.V.KARTHIKEYAN FOR MR.G.MOHANA KRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 COMMON ORDER These petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 27.01.2026 and 27.02.2026 made in I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026 in O.S. No. 99 of 2026 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶2Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2026 in O.S.No. 99 of 2026 seeking the relief of specific performance along with consequential reliefs, and also filed an application for temporary injunction, wherein the trial Court passed the following order: "Heard. Records perused. Status quo is to be maintained as on date till

27.02.2026." The said orders are now under challenge. Page2 of 4

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court has extended the order of status quo without assigning any reasons. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders reflect non-application of judicial mind and are therefore liable to be set aside.

¶4While granting or extending an interim order of status quo, the Court is required to consider and record findings with regard to existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. However, in the present case, the impugned orders have been passed merely on perusal of records, without any discussion or reasoning.

¶5In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial Court for fresh consideration on merits. The trial Court is directed to pass a reasoned order, after affording opportunity to both parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the Registry is directed to call for explanation from the Presiding Officer concerned regarding the manner in which the impugned orders came to be passed. Page3 of 4

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mpa

¶6In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 15-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MPA To

1.I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶2The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

3.The Section Officer, "B" Section, High Court, Madras. and CMP.Nos.7904 & 7905 of 2026 15-04-2026 Page4 of 4