AATHIMOOLAM Vs. A SURULIVEL NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure to call for the records in M. C. No. 125 of 1988 on the file of the Sub divisional Magistrate/revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti and quash the impugned order passed under Sec. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11. 7. 1988. THIS petition is filed on the ground that there is a civil dispute with regard to 2. 30 acres out of 6. 90 acres in survey No. 462, Chinnamanur Village, uthamapalayam taluk, Madurai district, that the civil suit is actually pending and that in disregard of the civil proceedings, the Revenue Divisional Officer, has passed the impugned order with respect to the same property as if there is breach of peace.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents pointed out that the present petition is clearly a misuse of the judicial process by suppression of facts and making falsehoods. I find this is a vexatious petition filed repeatedly by the petitioner after having failed in three successive petitions with regard to the same proceedings. This time he has come forward with false allegations without referring to his earlier petitions. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, this is a gross misuse of the judicial process. Factually, the averment made in the petition as if the Civil Court is seized of the matter is incorrect. The petitioner has filed some documents as if injunction is in his favour and he has been impleaded in the civil suit. But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in a suit O. S. No. 85 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Periakulam by one Velammal, who is the 6th respondent herein, against respondents 1 to 5, though the petitioner got himself impleaded as 6th defendant on the basis that he was a tenant under 6th respondent" and also got an exparte order of interim injunction, the same was vacated later, and the injunction petition was also dismissed. These facts the petitioner has deliberately suppressed in his petition and has produced only copy of the exparte order and the application in which he was impleaded as a party-defendant without disclosing that his petition for injunction was later dismissed.