A CHINNAIYA Vs. AMIRTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant in O.S.No.99 of 2000 is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) THE first respondent herein as plaintiff filed O.S.No.99 of 2000 against the revision petitioner (who is the second defendant) and the second respondent and 3rd respondent (who are defendants 1 and 3 herein) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interference with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is being used by the plaintiff as a pathway. Second and 3rd respondents herein (who are first defendant and 3rd defendant before the trial Court) entered appearance in the suit and are defending the suit.

(3.) THE facts are not in dispute. THE suit was dismissed by the trial Court against the revision petitioner on 20.11.2001 for not taking steps to issue fresh summons to second defendant, the revision petitioner herein Under Order 9 Rule 5 of C.P.C if the plaintiff fails, for a period of one month from the date of return of summons, to apply for the issue of fresh summons, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed as against such defendant.