LAWS(MAD)-2017-1-236

R. NATARAJAN Vs. P. PARTHIBAN

Decided On January 06, 2017
R. NATARAJAN Appellant
V/S
P. Parthiban Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the defendants 9 to 14 in O.S.No.277 of 2007. The case of the revision petitioners is that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners herein, in O.S.No.277 of 2007 before the Sub-Court, Chengalpet for declaration to declare the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. Further the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deeds executed by the defendants 7 to 8 as null and void. The said suit was resisted by the revision petitioners by filing written statement.

(2.) The further case of the revision petitioners is that pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.NO.723 of 2007 for interim injunction restraining the defendants 9 to 14 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The revision petitioners have filed an application in I.A. No.37 of 2008 in O.S. No.227 of 2007 under Order.14, Rule 2 (2) (a) of Civil Procedure Code r/w section 12 (2) of Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and Rule. 7 (3) of Civil Rules of Practise to try the under valuation of 1st relief of declaration as a preliminary issue in the suit. Both the applications were tried together and a common order was passed on 05.08.2008 by dismissing both the application filed by the revision petitioners and respondent herein.

(3.) As against the order rejecting to grant interim injunction, the plaintiff/ respondent herein filed appeal in C.M.A. No.81 of 2008 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet. Pending disposal of the above said C.M.A, the revision petitioners filed application in unnumbered I.A.S.R. No.5935 of 2012 seeking for a direction to conduct an enquiry under section 340 r/w Sec. 195 (1) (b) (i) of Cr.P.C against the respondent herein on the ground stating that the respondent herein marked documents before the Learned Principal District Judge at Chengalpet which were fabricated. So in order to cheat the Court, filed the false records, forged order fabricated document before the court which is punishable under section 191, 192 & 193 of IPC.