S RAJALAKSHMI Vs. SARADAMANI KANDAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petition is filed against an order of the learned District Judge, Chingleput, passed in I. A. No. 30 of 1992 dated 14. 1. 1992 exercising his powers under Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and ordering police protection in favour of the first respondent herein.

(2.) THE first respondent has filed three suits against the petitioners on the file of the original side of this Court and by a common judgment dated 29. 11. 1991 in C. S. Nos. 95 and 170 of 1984 and 302 of 1989, they were disposed of by Arumugham, J. All the suits filed by the first respondent were dismissed. Subsequent to the said dismissal of the suits, appeals were filed by the first respondent and they are pending on the Appellate side of this Court. THE petitioners instituted a suit in O. S. No. 2291 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee and also filed I. A. No. 3163 of 1991 praying for interim injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with the petitioners'peaceful possession of the suit lands bearing S. Nos. 13-16, 18-20 in Saidapet Taluk, Chingleput District. On 18. 12. 1991, the application praying for interim injunction was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee. Against the said order of the learned district Munsif, the petitioners preferred C. M. A. No. 5 of 1992 before the subordinate Judge at Poonamallee. Originally C. M. P,no. l7240 of 1991 was preferred by the petitioners before this Court during Christmas vacation, and by an order dated 26. 12. 1991 the learned vacation Judge A. R. Lakshmanan, J. after hearing the learned counsel on both sides ordered that status quo as on date to be maintained till either or both parties obtain orders from the appellate court against the impugned judgment. THE learned Judge has further directed that the standing crops shall not be harvested by both the parties till orders are obtained from the appropriate court and no new crops also shall be raised by the first respondent till then. Clarification was sought for by the first respondent herein by filing C. M. P. No. 494 of 1991 and by order dated 14. 1. 1992, the learned Judge has made it clear that he has not decided about the possession of the property and observed that it is for the appellant in the proposed appeal to move the appellate court for necessary and appropriate order and further directed the Sub Court, Poonamallee to number the appeal filed by the petitioners without insisting upon the production of a certified copy of the decree and number the same, if it is otherwise in order. While matter stood thus, the first respondent herein filed I. A. No. 30 of 1992 and made a sworn statement on 13. 1. 1992 before the District Court, Chingleput as if it is a petition under Sec. 151, C. P. C. praying to deploy a minimum of 50 police personnel to give protection to her life and property more fully described in the schedule to the petition. It has been alleged before the learned District judge, Chengalpattu by the first respondent herein that in view of Pongal holidays the petitioners herein will dispossess her and as such there is some urgency in the matter. It is contended by the first respondent before the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu that the petitioners will use force and expel the first respondent herein from the property. THE learned District judge, Chengalpattu passed an order on 14. 1. 1992, styling to be an interim order, till the appellate Forum hears the appeal filed by the first respondent herein. By the said order, the learned District Judge, Chengalpattu has granted police protection to the first respondent herein. This order is challenged before me.