SAKUNTALA AMMAL Vs. E RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. THE revision is directed against the order of the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed by the first defendant in I.A.No.628 of 2003 in O.S.No.113 of 2001 praying for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) IT is seen that the first respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.113 of 2001 against the petitioner herein and the second respondent praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner herein from interfering with his right of carrying on engineering business in the schedule shop by enforcing the order in E.P.No.120 of 2000. IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the second respondent are sisters and there was one other sister, each one of them have divided among themselves one shop each. The second respondent with a desire of usurping all the three shops, has filed a suit, which went up to the High Court in the second appeal and was ultimately dismissed. That was a first round of litigation in Second Appeal No.1749 of 1979 and the second round of litigation upto Second Appeal No.212 of 1992 are filed by the second respondent, who failed upto this Court and it was there after, the petitioner has taken possession of one shop which is the suit property. After possession was taken the second respondent has again trespassed into the property and put up a shed and it was in those circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a suit in O.S.No.331 of 1994 for possession after removing the super structure and the said suit was decreed.

(3.) IT was in spite of the specific undertaking given in the Honble Supreme Court, since the respondent has failed to hand over possession to the petitioner, the petitioner has to approach the Execution Court for the purpose of executing the decree for possession which was obtained and it was in those circumstances, the present suit came to be filed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a gross abuse of process of law and the learned Trial judge has not taken the same into consideration, however, has dismissed the petition on the technical ground, as if, in accordance with the undertaking in the Honble Supreme Court, the first respondent has handed over the possession to the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi.