RAJALAKSHMI Vs. RAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 30.01.2009 passed in I.A.No.1662 of 2008 in O.S.No,339 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.) The respondent is tenant in the ground floor of Door No,21/82, 11th Cross Street, Anna Salai, Lakshmi Nagar, Porur, Chennai. She filed a suit against the 1st petitioner in O.S.No,339 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/first petitioner from interfering with her peaceful peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property except by due process of law. She also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction, in I.A.No.1517 of 2008 also obtained ex parte injunction order against the 1st petitioner. 1st petitioner appeared through counsel, filed her counter and the matter is pending for enquiry.

(2.) THEREAFTER, she filed an application in I.A.No.1662 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 2(A) of CPC, praying the Court to punish the 1st petitioner by sending her to civil prison, not exceeding three months for committing the contempt of court by cutting electricity services and water connection to the suit property. In the said petition 1st petitioner was praying time for filing counter. The said petition was filed on 4.11.2008. The 1st petitioner on 7.11.2008 filed written statement in the suit, pleading that the suit property belongs to one Rajahamsan, husband of the defendant under whom the plaintiff's husband is tenant. Hence the respondent/plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.1787 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead the said Rajahamsan as party to the suit and I.A.Nos.1517 of 2008 and I.A.No.1662 of 2008. In the said petition notice was issued to the said Rajahamsan, who is 2nd petitioner herein and he appeared through lawyer on 1.12.2008. It was posted for counter on 1.12.2008. On that date, counter of R-2 was not filed and his counsel reported no instruction. In both the I.A.Nos. respondents, i.e., these petitioners were called absent and set ex parte and the petition for impleadment was allowed on 2.12.2008 in pursuance of which, the 2nd petitioner was added as a party in the I.As and in the Original Suit as well.

(3.) IN I.A.No.1662 of 2008, the matter had been posted for counter of the present petitioners on various dates from 7.11.2008 to 30.1.2009. Since counter was not filed and there was no representation for the respondents (these petitioners) on 23.12.2008 and on subsequent dates, on 30.1.2009, the trial Court passed an Order, directing the arrest of second respondent (second petitioner herein) who is alleged owner of the property by 12.2.2009. Hence both the petitioners filed the present revision petition before this Court.