V SIYAM SUNDAR Vs. T N BALASUBRANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents as well The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 18.11.1996 made in I.A. No. 14% of 1996 in O.S. No. 678 of 1994 by the Court of Principal District Munsif, Bhavani dismissing the application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction from the Court for Police protection on ground that in spite of an order of injunction having been passed as early as on 22.3.1995 in I.A. No. 72 of 1995 by the trial Court, the defendants in the suit were disturbing the petitioner's physical possession and enjoyment; of the suit properties.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.K. Kumaraswamy, would contend that the plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner herein and the suit is one for permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any manner "interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE suit properties are landed properties. Since there had been some obstruction caused on the part of the defendants along with the suit I.A. No. 72 of 1995 had also been filed by him and the sa id application got allowed after contest on 22.3.1995 and that the C.M.A. preferred by the defendants in C.M.A. No. 121 of 1995 in the Court of the District Judge, Erode had also been dismissed on 14.8.1995 and the revision filed in C.R.P. No. 2391 of 1995 by the other side also got dismissed as early as on 25.1.1998 itself, that the injunction order is still in operation against the defendants. While so, the defendants again started giving troubles to the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as a result of which the petitioner had to file another application in IA. No. 1496 of 1996 before the trial Court seeking a direction from the Court for Police protection to manage the situation and the said application on enquiry having come to be dismissed by the trial Court, against the said order of dismissal the above revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

(3.) AT the same time, the reasons assigned on the part of the lower Court that the petitioner did not come forward to prefer an application along with" the suit; that the petitioner failed to implead the Police as a necessary party and that title doubt cast by the Court below stating whether the injunction order already granted by the very same Court had been still in force etc. The order made by it is herein' found to be untenable and inconsistent. The said order as passed by the Court below does not also seem to be based on sound reasons and the same has to be set aside.