A M MURUGESAN Vs. E PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Even though the petition posted was only to dispense with the. production of the original order, maintainability of the review, application itself was heard even at its SR stage.

(2.) Against an order of ad-interim injunction, a Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of ad-interim injunction, police protection was also granted by Trial Court, against which also a revision petition was filed. Both the revisions were heard by me, and 1 allowed those Revisions, namely, C.R.P. Nos. 997 and 998 as per my order dated 14.7.1998. I gave certain directions to the lower Court that the property itself will have to be redelivered and the revision petitioner (E.K. Palanisami) must be put in possession forthwith, and without any further application, and if necessary, he must be restored with possession of the property with police help.

(3.) It is not disputed by the review petitioners herein that against the common order passed by me in the above revision petitions, a Special Leave Petition was filed before the honourable Supreme Court, and the same was also dismissed. It is after the dismissal of the SLP, the present Review Application is filed.