Judgment 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.3216/2012/A4 on the file of the first respondent and aggrieved by the restraint order passed in the said proceedings dated 06.01.2014, she has filed this Criminal Revision Case. 2. According to the second respondent, the lands admeasuring 3 acres and 10 cents in S.Nos.2415/2, 2412/2A, 2318/1B and 2318/1C in Devathanapatti village, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District, belong to his wife, namely, Tmt.Noorjahan and the said lands are under his management and being cultivated by him. 3. It is the case of the second respondent that the revision petitioner herein had made attempts to trespass into the said lands by engaging rowdy elements and in that event, there is a law and order problem and prayed for appropriate orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 4. The first respondent has issued notices to the second respondent as well as to the revision petitioner herein, calling upon them to appear before him along with the relevant documents. On 25.03.2013, the second respondent appeared before the first respondent and produced the title deeds and adangal to prove that he is in possession of the property. Though the revision petitioner was represented by a Counsel before the first respondent, he filed the vakalat alone ad did not produce any documents. The matter was adjourned to 10.04.2013 and on that date also, no document whatsoever was produced on behalf of the revision petitioner. 5. The first respondent, on consideration of the documents produced by the second respondent, has found that the lands in question belong to the wife of the second respondent and they are cultivated by the second respondent and the revision petitioner, who is a resident nearby the said lands, made attempts to trespass into the same by engaging henchmen and having found that such a kind of act may lead to law and order problem, has passed the restraint order, restraining the revision petitioner from entering into the said lands. 6. The revision petitioner herein aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent, preferred the appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Theni and it was returned on 30.06.2014 by directing the revision petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent civil forum. 7. 6. The revision petitioner herein aggrieved by the said order passed by the first respondent, preferred the appeal before the District Revenue Officer, Theni and it was returned on 30.06.2014 by directing the revision petitioner to work out her remedy before the competent civil forum. 7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the order of restraint, restraining the revision petitioner from entering into or trespassing into the said lands, is without any basis and even for the sake of arguments that the first respondent is having jurisdiction to pass such a order, he has not discussed the contents of the order. 8. It is further submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that though the revision petitioner has prayed for time at the time of enquiry, the first respondent did not consider that request and had chosen to pass orders without affording any opportunity whatsoever to her and therefore, prayed for interference. 9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that the after service of notice, it was posted for enquiry on 25.03.2013 and on that date, a Counsel entered appearance for the revision petitioner and sought for time and it was adjourned to 10.04.2013 and on that date also, on behalf of the revision petitioner, who was arrayed as the respondent, no documentary evidence has been filed and the first respondent, after taking into consideration the documentary evidence, has correctly has passed the order of restraint and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of this revision. 10. This Court, on a careful consideration of the rival submissions and upon perusal of the impugned order, is of the considered view that this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons: (i) Though it is the vehement submission of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that the Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner before the first respondent sought for time and it was not considered by the first respondent, a perusal of the impugned order does not disclose the said fact and even in the grounds of revision, no such ground has been raised. (ii) On the merits of the case, admittedly, no document whatsoever, was produced by the revision petitioner before the first respondent to sustain his claim that she is continuing in possession of the said lands as a cultivating tenant and the first respondent, having found that the documents produced by the second respondent would support his case that his wife is the owner of the lands in question and he is the cultivating tenant, formed the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of a law and order problem and therefore, correctly passed the order of restraint, restraining the revision petitioner from entering into or trespassing into the above said lands. (iii) This Court finds no error or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the first respondent and there is no merit in the revision. 11. At this moment, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he has invoked the jurisdiction of Record of Tenancy Officer to record the name of the revision petitioner as a cultivating tenant. 12. This Court, having found that the present revision lacks merit, is inclined to dismiss the same. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the first respondent in M.C.No.3216/2012/A4, dated 06.01.2014. However, the revision petitioner is at liberty to work out her further remedy based on the proceedings of the Record of Tenancy Officer before whom the application filed by the revision petitioner is pending. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.