(1.) THE Memorandum of Civil Revision in C.R.P. No. 751 of 2006 is directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 14.12.2005 and made in I.A.. No. 11 of 2004 in I.A. No. 4 of 2004 in C.M.A. No. 3 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, whereas the Memorandum of Civil Revision in Crp. No. 752 of 2006 has been directed against the fair and decretal Order dated 14.12.2005 and made in I.A.. No. 13 of 2004 in I.A.. No. 6 of 2004 in C.M.A. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The Revision Petitioner in both the Civil Revisions are one and the same. With the issues is involved in both the Revision Petitions is common in nature they have been clubbed together heard jointly and disposed of in this Common Order.
(2.) THE Revision Petitioner Mr. N. Rajendran had filed a Suit in O.S. No. 866 of 2013 on the file of the learned District Munsif Salem, as against the Respondents 1 to 3 in Crp. No. 751 of 2006 seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction. Along with the Suit he had also filed an Application in I.A.. No. 729 of 2003 seeking the relief of Ad -interim Injunction. Similarly, he has also filed an another Suit in O.S. No. 648 of 2003 as against the Respondents 1 to 6 in C.R.P. No. 752 of 2006 seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction against them. Along with the said Suit he had also filed an application in I.A.. No. 1313 of 2006 and thereby sought the relief of ad Interim Injunction. Both the Applications were contested by the Respondents therein and ultimately they both were dismissed on 9.2.2004. Challenging the correctness of the impugned Order, the Revision Petitioner had filed two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals viz., C.M.A. Nos. 3 & 4 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem.
(3.) WHEN the above said Orders were in force, the Revision Petitioner -Mr. M. Rajendran had come forward with two Applications in I.A.. No. 11 of 2004 in I.A.. No. 4 of 2004 in C.M.A. No. 3 of 2004 saying that the Respondents therein, in gross violation of the order of status quo and without any regard to the Order passed by the Court, had not only prevented him from the user of the Suit cart track but also had altered the physical feature of the Suit property by erecting a shed and laying new road in the Suit property in order to defeat and defraud his lawful rights and therefore, he had requested the Court to pass suitable orders under Section 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, to punish them for having disobeyed the Order of the Court.