Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) 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. 186 of 2016 (the Respondents herein), wherein the suit for damages filed by the Appellant herein had been decreed by the First Additional District Judge, Madurai, vide order dated 03.04.2018.
(3.) The short question in this appeal is whether the suit for damages filed by the Appellant is maintainable in light of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (in short "the Act"), which depends on whether the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court. 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 construction in 2014. The Appellant's father filed O.S. No. 783 of 2014 against Respondent No. 1 for the relief of injunction, since Respondent No. 1 had started putting up a construction in front of the Appellant's property obstructing free access to the property of the Appellant's father. Though an order for maintaining the status quo was passed in the said suit, Respondent No. 1 completed his construction regardless. Later, aggrieved by the filing of the suit, Respondent No. 1, along with some henchmen, damaged certain construction materials on the Appellant's property, causing damage to the tune of Rs. 2.27 lacs. The Appellant resultantly lodged the first information before the police and a crime came to be registered against Respondent No. 1, who later further damaged the show-case glass at the Appellant's hotel by pelting stones at it and damaged its automatic glass door by driving a car into the hotel. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 trespassed into the hotel and took away cash of more than Rs. 1 lac. The Appellant spent Rs. 73,000/- on medical expenses for his injured employees, and subsequently filed O.S. No. 186 of 2016. 3.2 The Trial Court decreed the suit, i.e. O.S. No. 186 of 2016, holding that the Appellant was entitled to damages of Rs. 18,28,941/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization, with proportionate costs. The maintainability of the suit was not an issue before the Trial Court. 3.3 The High Court, in appeal, framed points for consideration with respect to the maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of necessary parties, and the accrual of the cause of action. Though it was held that the suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and was not prematurely filed, the decree was set aside solely based on the finding that the suit was not maintainable. The High Court found that there was no express bar on civil jurisdiction in the Act. However, it held that since the Act specified a particular method for claiming compensation for damage to property in Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, as well as Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Rules, 1994 (in short "the Rules"), all other methods for claiming compensation were excluded by implication, and thus the jurisdiction of the civil court was impliedly barred. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.;