Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1039 (MAD)

Periyasamy v. P. Eswaran & Another.

2010-03-15

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment : This petition has been filed against the fair and final order, dated 24.11.2009, made in I.A.No.1222 of 2009, in O.S.No.299 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. 2. The petitioner had stated that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.299 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, praying for a declaration to declare the suit property as a cart track and to register the same in the revenue records, as such and to restrain the third and the fourth defendants therein from obstructing the plaintiff from using the suit property, as the common cart track and to restrain the defendants from obliterating the cart track and to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful use of the suit property. 3. The plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.299 of 2009, is the petitioner herein. The petitioner had filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1222 of 2009, praying for the removal of the obstructions caused by the defendants in the common cart track and to provide police aid to remove the obstructions. However, the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, in his order, dated 24.11.2009, made in I.A.No.1222 of 2009, had dismissed the application stating that the removal of the Lingam, which was been installed in the cart track would cause problems amongst various religious communities. The learned Judge had also stated that an appeal had been filed by the respondents before the Subordinate Court, Tiruppur, in C.M.A.No.17 of 2009, against the order of interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. She had also stated that Section 145 proceedings are also pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruppur, who is the first defendant in the suit, in O.S.No.299 of 2009. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the obstructions had been caused in the common cart track by the defendants after the order of interim injunction had been granted by the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, on 4.11.2009, in I.A.No.945 of 2009. Therefore, the petitioner had prayed for removal of the obstruction caused by the defendants, with police aid. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents had not caused any obstruction in the common cart tack, in violation of the order of interim injunction granted by the trial Court, on 4.11.2009, in I.A.No.945 of 2009. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the respondents had not caused any obstruction in the common cart tack, in violation of the order of interim injunction granted by the trial Court, on 4.11.2009, in I.A.No.945 of 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the obstructions had been caused by the respondents after the order of interim injunction had been granted by the trial Court, on 4.11.2009. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that the obstructions had been caused by the respondents, who are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.299 of 2009, after the order of interim injunction had been granted by the trial Court, on 4.11.2009. In such circumstances, the trial Court had dismissed the application, in I.A.No.1222 of 2009, filed by the petitioner. 6. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present civil revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been in a position to show that the obstructions had been caused by the respondents after the trial Court had granted the order of interim injunction, on 4.11.2009, in I.A.No.945 of 2009. It is for the trial Court to decide such issues during the trial, in O.S.No.299 of 2009. 7. Even though there is some indication by the learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, that some violation of the interim order, dated 4.11.2009, had taken place, it is not clear as to whether such violation had been caused by the defendants, who are the respondents in the present civil revision petition. Further, there is no categorical finding as to the nature of the violations caused. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.