RENUKA DEVI Vs. D MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S.No. 5345 of 1997, on the file of the VII Assistant. City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petition. The plaintiff claiming himself to be a tenant under the defendant filed this suit for injunction, to restrain her from entering into the building. It is the case of the respondent that the defendant let out the building to him, by virtue of an affidavit dated 17.7.97, on his agreeing to pay the the monthly rent of Rs. 1,500. It is also his case that he has paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 as advance to the petitioner. It is further averred in the plaint, that on 31.7.97 at about 10.00 a.m. the defendant came to the suit premises, and wanted the plaintiff to vacate the premises, on the ground, that the plaintiff happened to be a brother of an Advocate. She also offered to return the sum of Rs. 40,000 which has been paid as advance. The plaintiff did not agree for the same, which created a misunderstanding between the parties. It is his further case that on 1.8.1997, the defendant with her family members shouted at him and attempted to enter in to the suit premises, and the same was resisted by the family members of the plaintiff. It is said that the plaintiff, however, managed to prevent them from entering into the building. Thereafter, the defendant made a open challenge stating that they are capable of removing the plaintiff without the intervention of the Court, though the plaintiffs brother is an Advocate. A police complaint was made by the plaintiff, which was not fruitful. The suit was, therefore, filed to restrain the defendant, on the basis of the apprehension that she may enter into the property at any times.

(2.) THE suit was filed on 1.8.1997, and on the same date, an interim injunction was granted as follows:- "Heard,. Perused the records. THEre is prima facie case. Ad interim injunction till 14.8.97 under Order 39, Rule 3 to be complied with." THE present revision is filed against that order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent submitted that we are only at the preliminary stage, and if the respondent is thrown out of the property at this stage, and if he is ultimately in a position to prove his case, the hardship cannot be compensated. I am not agreeing with the said submission. When the Court forms an impression, on the basis of the case of the respondent and comes to the conclusion that the party has come with a false case, after creating a document, following the settled legal position, it has to be thrown out at the threshold. He should not be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to prove his fraud. Instance are not wanting. On the basis of the oral evidence, truth cannot be suppressed and fraud cannot be perpetuated. In all such cases, it is only because the Court has been silent, and has permitted the party to prove the fraud. That should not be the attitude of a Court, when a blatant injustice and fraud are brought to its notice. It has to be removed without any delay.