P CHENCHU RAMIAH Vs. A M NOOHU NACHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST defendant in O.S.No.5628 of 1998, on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is the revision petitioner. The revision has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) FIRST respondent herein filed the simple suit O.S.No.5628 of 1998, for injunction to restrain the defendants in the suit who are two in number, from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the plaint, it was stated that she purchased the property on 5.2.1966 and that she is enjoying the same. It is also stated therein that she is staying at her native place at Thanjavur. Property Tax, water tax and Government dues in respect of the property are paid by representative of plaintiff in the name of plaintiff, and that she had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also alleged in the plaint that the defendants are rank trespassers, and, taking advantage of the absence of plaintiff, defendants are trying to grab the suit property and in that process, defendants, on 18.8.1998 attempted to dispossess the representative of plaintiff and her from the suit property with a view to take control of the same. But, because of the timely intervention of the representative of plaintiff, the evil design of defendants did not materialise. Subsequently, defendants and their henchmen are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and her staff from the suit property by resorting to illegal means. Cause of action is stated to have arisen at Chennai on 5.2.1966 when plaintiff purchased the suit property and on 18.8.1998 when the defendants were attempting to enter into the suit property and subsequently when the defendants were attempting to enter into the suit property.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that on 16.9.1998, after filing the counter, he argued the case in full and the matter was adjourned to 18.9.1998 for arguments by plaintiff's counsel. IT is also his case that the address given in the plaint as well as in various notices is not the correct address. The matter came on 18.9.1998, on which date the court below adjourned it to 22.9.1998 since notice to 2nd respondent was not returned. On 22.9.1998, second respondent filed Vakalath and sought time upto 15.10.1998. The matter was adjourned to 15.10.1998. In the meanwhile, the revision petition was filed on 21.9.1998.