Order This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in M.C.No. 125 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti and quash the impugned order passed under Sec.145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.7.1988. This petition is filed on the ground that there is a civil dispute with regard to 2.30 acres out of 6.90 acres in survey No.462, Chinnamanur Village, Uthamapalayam taluk, Madurai district, that the civil suit is actually pending and that in disregard of the civil proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has passed the impugned order with respect to the same property as if there is breach of peace. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the present petition is clearly a misuse of the judicial process by suppression of facts and making falsehoods. I find this is a vexatious petition filed repeatedly by the petitioner after having failed in three successive petitions with regard to the same proceedings. This time he has come forward with false allegations without referring to his earlier petitions. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, this is a gross misuse of the judicial process. Factually, the averment made in the petition as if the Civil Court is seized of the matter is incorrect. The petitioner has filed some documents as if injunction is in his favour and he has been impleaded in the civil suit. But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in a suit O.S.No.85 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periakulam by one Velammal, who is the 6th respondent herein, against respondents 1 to 5, though the petitioner got himself impleaded as 6th defendant on the basis that he was a tenant under 6th respondent? and also got an exparte order of interim injunction, the same was vacated later, and the injunction petition was also dismissed. These facts the petitioner has deliberately suppressed in his petition and has produced only copy of the exparte order and the application in which he was impleaded as a party-defendant without disclosing that his petition for injunction was later dismissed. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein initiated proceedings against respondents 6 and 7 and the ‘petitioner herein before the Executive First Class Magistrate/Sub Collector, Periyakulam, in M.C.No. 7 of 1985. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein initiated proceedings against respondents 6 and 7 and the ‘petitioner herein before the Executive First Class Magistrate/Sub Collector, Periyakulam, in M.C.No. 7 of 1985. The petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P. No.685 of 1986 to quash the proceedings in M.C.No. 7 of 1985 and R.Sengottuvelan, J. dismissed that petition on 7.2.1986 by elaborately considering all the contentions. This case is also reported in Aathimoolam v. A.Surulivel Naicker Aathimoolam v. A.Surulivel Naicker 1986 L.W.(Crl.) 262. Thereafter, with respect to the same proceedings in M.C.No. 7 of 1985, without disclosing dismissal of earlier petition, the petitioner again filed Crl.M.P. No. 661 of 1987, which was also dismissed by G.Maheswaran, J. by order dated 25.3.1987. Not content with the dismissal of his earlier two petitions, the petitioner filed a third petition in Crl.M.P. No.7323 of 1987 and the same was also dismissed by Padmini Jesudurai, J. on 10.11.1987. In all the earlier proceedings, and also in the present proceedings, the petitioner appeared in person. 4. In the present petition, the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings in M.C.No. 125 of 1988 as if it is different from the one in M.C.No. 7 of 1985 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Periyakulam. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents and as seen from the records, the very same petition in M.GNo.7 of 1985 was subsequently re-numbered as M.C.No.144 of 1986 and subsequently transferred to Usilampatti and renumbered as M.C.No.125 of 1988. This transfer itself was ordered by the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai on the allegation made by the petitioner against the Executive Magistrate/Sub Collector, Periyakulam. This transfer itself was ordered by the Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai on the allegation made by the petitioner against the Executive Magistrate/Sub Collector, Periyakulam. Suppressing the fact that M.C.No.125 of 1988 pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti is none other than the petition which was pending before the Sub Collector, Periyakulam as M.GNo.7 of 1985, the present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the allegation that the Civil Court is seized of the matter and that therefore the Executive Magistrate has no power to pass an order under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying on the decision reported in Ram Sumar Purai Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ram Sumar Purai Mahant v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 2472 But, as already pointed but, the Civil Court has negatived his contention and dismissed his injunction petition and on the apprehension that there is likelihood of breach of peace, the Executive Magistrate issued the impugned notice to the parties concerned to appear before him on a specified date. It is also pointed out that actually evidence was also recorded and the petitioner did participate in the proceedings. When confronted with this fact, the petitioner had to admit that he was forced to give evidence in the proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has successively filed four petitions on the same cause of action after the dismissal of each of the petitions. This is clearly an act of the petitioner to mislead the Court by deliberate suppression of facts. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Further, this act of the petitioner is clearly misuse of the judicial proceedings, and as such, this is a fit case where I feel, as held in the decision reported in Hastings Mills Limited v. Hira Singh Hastings Mills Limited v. Hira Singh 1978 Crl.L.J. 560 that the petitioner should be restrained from initiating any similar proceedings against the respondents without first obtaining the leave of Court. 6. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with a direction that there will be injunction against the petitioner from initiating any similar proceedings in this Court against the respondents without first obtaining the leave from this Court. 6. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with a direction that there will be injunction against the petitioner from initiating any similar proceedings in this Court against the respondents without first obtaining the leave from this Court. The Executive Magistrate/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.