Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1887 (MAD)

K. Selvaraj v. Superintendent of Police

2014-07-03

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take appropriate action as against the second and the third respondents herein in the light of the petitioner's representation, dated 20.02.2012. 2. It is averred in the affidavit that with regard to the property situated at S.F.No.231/2,231/2A of Gundur Village, Trichy District, there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the fifth respondent's vendors. Originally, a suit in O.S.No.2596 of 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Trichy, had been instituted by the vendor's of the fifth respondent herein. The said suit was disposed of, on 08.12.1998 in favour of the fifth respondent's vendors. As against the same, the petitioner preferred a first appeal vide A.S.NO.89 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Trichy and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the order of the said A.S.No.89 of 1999, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before this Court and same is said to be pending. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the fact, as narrated above, at the instance of the fifth respondent, the petitioner has been unnecessarily called for and harassed by the police officials, under the guise of enquiry. Hence, he has come forward with the Writ Petition for the relief stated supra. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent has specifically denied the said averment made by the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner is not producing any documents to substantiate his claim and therefore, the petitioner was called for, on the basis of the complaint given by the fifth respondent herein. 6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents in support of his claim, before the third respondent, who in turn directed to consider the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent herein and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the documents as stated above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.