MANICKAMMAL Vs. C BALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/first respondent has projected the Civil Revision Petition as against the fair order dated 10/6/2005 in T.C.T.P No.189 of 1991 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Madurai/Revenue Court.

(2.) THE Revenue Court/Special Deputy Collector, Madurai, while passing the orders in T.C.T.P No.189 of 1991 dated 10/6/2005 as among other things observed that the respondents therein viz., the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition and the second respondent in Civil Revision Petition as well as in T.C.T.P No.189 of 1991 are established to be the cultivating tenants and as such they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as five years arrears of lease rent for the period from 1987 as per oral agreement dated 20/1/1985 in respect of suit lands and the said amount has been directed to be paid within a period of two months.

(3.) IN short, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the order of the Revenue Court dated 10/6/2005 is allowed to stand, then, it will result in miscarriage of justice besides causing irreparable hardship to the petitioner.