CHINNAPAIYAN Vs. R. HARI VENKATESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed to strike off the plaint in O.S. No. 140 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sub -Court, Salem.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the tenant under the second respondent namely, C. Srinivasan, who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The petitioner herein has reclaimed the property, raised mango saplings and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the first respondent herein has purchased the suit property from the second respondent and both of them attempted to interfere the petitioner's possession, the petitioner herein was forced to file a suit in O.S. No. 1128 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property till he is evicted under due process of law. Along with the suit, the petitioner herein has filed I.A. No. 2140 of 2011 for interim injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2(respondents 2 and 1 herein) from interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 were engaged a same counsel, but they have not filed counter in that application. So ex -parte order of interim injunction was passed on 11.07.2012, interim injunction was granted, Advocate Commissioner was appointed and filed his report. Without considering the aforestated aspects, the first respondent herein has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 140 of 2015, wherein he has mentioned only the filing of O.S. No. 1128 of 2011, but he has not mentioned the ex -parte order of injunction granted by the trial Court on 11.07.2012. So there is suppression of material fact by the first respondent and hence, he prayed for striking off the plaint in O.S. No. 140 of 2015.

(3.) CONSIDERED the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papers.