DEEPIKA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. L V RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF in O.S.No.103 of 1956 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam is the revision petitioner herein.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the contractor and it was employed by defendants for putting up construction in the property. It is the case of plaintiff that construction is mostly over. But misunderstanding arose between parties and defendant did not pay the amount due to plaintiff. It is his further case that for the purpose of storing materials for putting up construction, plaintiff was entrusted with possession of the property and in view of misunderstanding, defendant is interfering with his possession. PLAINTIFF also apprehends that defending is going to engage another contractor for completing the construction. PLAINTIFF further alleges that defendant is not entitled to commit breach of contract and he has to be prevented from doing so by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. The relief sought for in the plaint reads thus: "to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men, servants, legal representatives or anybody claiming through him from in any way dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property building constructing contractor except under due process of law until complete the remaining works in the suit property and settle the due amount to the plaintiff""

(3.) SINCE caveat was entered, I heard the revision itself at the time of admission.