T RAMACHANDRA Vs. N RANGANATHA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is a glaring example of gross abuse of the judicial process by perpetuating fraud on the Court coupled with laxity and casualness with which some of the trial Judges are conveniently falling prey to such unscrupulous and well planned mischiefs designed to take benefit of delays and procedural wrangles in our adjudicatory system.

(2.) PETITIONER Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Petitioner No. 1. They had originally filed revision petition in C. R. P. No. 2264/02 on 27-5-2002 before this Court praying to set aside the order dated 9-5-2002 passed in O. S. No. 3091/02 on the file of the XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, and for directing restoration of their possession over the suit schedule property on the ground that the encumbrance certificate produced by the respondent along with the suit plaint which was the main foundation for seeking relief in the suit, was forged and concocted one. Anyhow, in view of the amendment made to S. 115, C. P. C. by the Central Act 46/1999, which came into force w. e. f. 1-7-2002 and the judgment of this Court in the case of K. R. Subbaraju v. Vasavi Trading Company, ILR 2002 Kant 3513 : (2002 AIR - Kant HCR 2028 : AIR 2002 Kant 407), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners having felt that the revision petition may not be maintainable sought permission to convert the revision petition into writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, which was duly granted. Accordingly, the revision petition was renumbered as W. P. No. 31865/02.

(3.) THE sole respondent Sri. N. Ranganatha Chettiar filed the above suit on 9-5-2002 seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, which is a residential building with some vacant space. In sum and substance, the case made out by the respondent is that he is the direct descendant and legal heir of Sri. T. M. Govinda Chetty, who was the original owner of the property in question. According to him, he was all through in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. But, according to him, on 8-5-2002, the present petitioners along with their supporters and rowdy elements came and attempted to disturb his possession. Accordingly, he sought for restraint order against the petitioners. Along with the plaint, respondent/plaintiff filed application under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. read with S. 151, C. P. C. for grant of ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. The vacation Judge Sri. K. B. Lenkennavar heard on the application the very next day i. e. 10-5-2002 and thereupon passed the following ex parte order :-