C.R.P.No.993 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
C.R.P.No.993 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020
M.Kandasamy (Died)
2.Manoharan
3.Natarajan
4.Thangammal
5.Sumathi ... Petitioners
(Petitioners 4 & 5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased 1st petitioner
viz.M.Kandasamy vide Court order dated 24.03.2021 made in
C.M.P.No.5392 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.993 of 2020)
..Vs..
1.Kaliannan
2.Nallammal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of
Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.01.2020 in
R.E.A.No.1 of 2019 in R.E.P.No.4 of 2018 in O.S.No.125 of 2013 on the
file of the District Munsif, Paramathi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.No.993 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthil
For Respondents : Mr.V.Ravichandran
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 04.01.2020 in R.E.A.No.1 of 2019 in R.E.P.No.4 of 2018 in O.S.No.125 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramathi.
2.The civil revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.125 of 2013. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction directing the defendants to not interfere with their right to use the common pathway situated in Agra Manapalli Village, Paramathi Taluk, Namakkal District. The suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif Court, Paramathi, vide her decree and judgment dated 31.10.2017. Despite the order of permanent injunction granted by the trial Court, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants are obstructing the pathway and therefore, they filed E.P.No.4 of 2018 before the District Munsif Court, Paramathi. In the said execution petition E.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed seeking police protection under Section 151 of CPC. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 C.R.P.No.993 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020 learned District Munsif Court, Paramathi, vide her orders dated 04.01.2020 allowed the said application and granted police protection to the petitioners / plaintiffs in E.A.No.1 of 2019. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have filed the present civil revision petition.
3.Heard Mr.S.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr.V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4.Mr.S.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the plaintiffs filed the contempt petition in E.A.No.4 of 2018 and thereafter, filed E.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking for police protection. His further contention is that the executing Court, without passing any orders in the contempt petition, has taken up E.P.No.1 of 2019 and granted police protection. According to him, the defendants are not obstructing the common pathway and granting police protection is absolutely not necessary. His further contention is that granting police protection would be prejudicial to the defendants in the contempt petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 C.R.P.No.993 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020
5.In the suit in O.S.No.125 of 2013 the main contention of the defendants is that the suit pathway exclusively belonged to them. Though the counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the suit property is a common pathway and that the defendants are not obstructing the same, the records show that the defendant had filed an appeal in A.S.No.28 of 2018 against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.125 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramathi. The Executing Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, had come to a definite conclusion that the defendants are obstructing the common passage and therefore, the plaintiffs who have filed execution petition in E.P.No.4 of 2018 are entitled for police protection. The Executing Court in fact has passed a detailed order and all the observations made by the Executing Court is perfectly in order and there is nothing to show that the order is perverse or without application of mind. Hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 C.R.P.No.993 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020
6.In the result, i. the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. ii. The order dated 04.01.2020 in R.E.A.No.1 of 2019 in R.E.P.No.4 of 2018 in O.S.No.125 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif, Paramathi. is upheld.
08.09.2022 mtl Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 C.R.P.No.993 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020 R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl To
1.The District Munsif Court, Paramathi.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.No.993 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.5377 of 2020 08.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6