NALLU Vs. PUSHPAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 133 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vedasandur, aggrieved against the order made in C.M.A. No. 37 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Dindugul, dismissing his petition for injunction has filed the present revision under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit against the respondent herein and one Rangan for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is contended that one Venkatasamy Naicker obtained decree in O.S. No. 174 of 1979 against Perumal Naicker and another for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,000. He also obtained an order of attachment before judgment of the property in I.A. No. 261 of 1979 on 16.6.1979. Thereafter he filed E.P. No. 428 of 1981 and brought the property to sale. The petitioner herein has purchased the said property in court auction and took possession through court on 2.11.1990. Since according to the petitioner the respondent started giving trouble, he constrained to file the above mentioned suit for injunction. He also filed 1.A. No. 225 of 1996 for interim injunction pending disposal of the suit. The trial court by an order dated 1.8.1996 granted injunction. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent herein filed C.M.A. No. 37 of 1996 before the District Court, Dindigul. The learned District Judge after receiving certain documents as additional evidence allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition for injunction. Aggrieved by such order the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the above revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the first respondent.