CHELLAMMAL @ P.VIJAYAKUMARI Vs. M.GOPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE of notice on the second respondent is sufficient. The other respondents, namely R1,R2 and R4 are represented by a Counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the revision Petitioner and M/s.J.Maria Roseline, learned counsel for the contesting respondents are heard.

(2.) THE present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed aggrieved by the order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli rejecting a memo dated 06.09.2012 filed by the revision Petitioner for the withdrawal of the earlier memo dated 18.07.2012, which was also accompanied by an affidavit.

(3.) THE Original Suit in O.S.No.1132 of 2010 was filed on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli by one P.Vijayakumari, Wife of Late.Palayandi, represented by Shanthi as her Power Agent. The said suit was filed for bare injunction not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the said Vijayakumari. The contesting defendants therein seem to have doubted the identity of the plaintiff and on probe, found that the revision Petitioner by name Chellammal had impersonated P.Vijayakumari and caused the filing of the suit in the name of Vijayakumari, represented by Shanthi as her power agent. The same resulted in lodging of a complaint. On a direction issued by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court to register a case and investigate the case and pursuant to such a direction, a case was registered in Cr.No.45 of 2010, on the file of the City Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli and the investigation of the case is in progress.