Madras High Court
M.Kandasamy (Died) vs Kaliannan on 8 September, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
