(1.) TINS Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by one Gopalakrishnan. who is B -Party in M.C.No.4/99/A.l/on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector. Tiruppur to set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE Revision Petitioner Gopalakrishnan is the brother of Venkatachalani who was arrayed as A -Party before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. After the death of the father, the petitioner and his brother Venkatachalani have divided the properties left by their father and Door No.4, Town Extension. I Street, Tiruppur was allotted to the share of the petitioner, whereas Door No.5, Town Extension, First Street, Tiruppur was allotted to the share of his brother Venkatachalani. Partition was effected on 14.4.1972 and ever since the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Door No.4, Town Extension, I Street, Tiruppur . There has been some dispute between the petitioner and his brother and the petitioner's brother Venkatachalam tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and therefore the latter was constrained to file O.S.No.120 of 1999 before the Sub -Court, Tiruppur praying for a permanent injunction restraining Venkatachalam from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of building bearing Door No.4, Town extension, I Street, Tiruppur. He has also filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.309 of 1999 along with the suit and obtained an interim order of injunction against Venkatachalani by the order dated 24.2.1999. While so, Venkatachalam seems to have been sending petitions to the Revenue Officials and to the police and on the complaint made by Venkatachalam Tiruppur South Police Station have registered a case in Cr.No.709 of 1999 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. on 1.11.1999. This was forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub -Collector, Tiruppur who issued notices to Venkatachalam and this petitioner Venkatachalani was arrayed as A -Party and Gopalakrishnan. The present petitioner was arrayed as B -Party, Gopalakrishnan entered appearance and filed a written statement setting out his claim of possession of the disputed property and also filed documents in support of his claim. Venkatachalam did not file any statement of claim, but he filed number of documents.
(3.) THE POINT: