D SWAMINATHAN Vs. KRISHNASWAMY PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of the principal District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in a peculiar application filed by the petitioner herein. The prayer in that application is that the court should not permit the 2nd respondent to file any counter in I. A. No. 214 of 1991 on behalf of the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE necessary facts are these: THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 2350 of 1990. He has prayed (or injunction restraining the only defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE defendant filed a written statement. THE 2nd respondent herein was appearing as counsel for the defendant. He filed the written statement and vakalat for the 1st respondent. In the petition, I. A. No. 2227 of 1990, filed by the petitioner for an injunction, it appears there was an order of interim injunction. THE petitioner filed I. A. No. 214 of 1991 for punishing the defendant for contempt for violating the injunction order passed by the trial court. In that application the advocate of the defendant, who is the 2nd respondent herein, is also shown as a party by the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the application an allegation is made that the 2nd respondent is the counsel for the 1st respondent has advised and instigated the 1st respondent to do the unlawful act and he is also guilty of contempt of court and therefore he is impleaded as a party of court and therefore he is impleaded as a party to the application. In the application, the 2nd respondent engaged a lawyer for representing himself and insofar as the 1st respondent is concerned, the 2nd respondent continued to represent him and also filed a counter affidavit. THE application filed by the petitioner in I. A. No. 320 of 1991 is not to permit the 2nd respondent to file any counter on behalf of the 1st respondent. THE contention of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent being been made a party to the application for contempt should not represent the other party to the application, who is the 1st respondent. THE court below refused to accept that contention and dismissed the application. It is the said order which is questioned in this revision petition.