M. RAJASARASWATHI Vs. T. PONNUDURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.59 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ambasamuthiram and in the suit, the plaintiffs sought for declaration, permanent injunction, etc. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.751 of 2017 for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit for the same cause of action and the said application was dismissed, on the ground that no prima facie materials have been adduced in respect of the relief sought for in the application. Aggrieved by such finding, the revision petitioner/defendant is before this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the revision petitioners that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase and in the property, there was a heap of sand for about 50 feet and the defendant illegally obtained patta for the said property and got permission for transportation of the sand from his property without his knowledge. It is the further case of the revision petitioner that she had preferred complaint about the illegal act of the defendant to the Revenue Officials and Police, no action has been taken against him and he had not stopped his illegal activities, which made her to file the above suit.

(3.) The revision petitioner state that in the written statement filed by the defendant, he had stated that the plaintiff has not been in possession of the property and as such, the suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. Though the defendant had been stating that the property was purchased by him by way of valid sale deed, no document had produced on his side, whereas the plaintiff is in possession of all documents to prove her case and therefore, as per the advice of her Advocate, it has become imperative for the plaintiff to withdraw the said suit and in its place, file a yet another suit for possession instead of declaration and permanent injunction. The Trial Court, without considering the factual involved in the case, has simply rejected the plea of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.