Madras High Court
Palanisamy vs Duraisamy on 1 August, 2024
C.R.P.No.3556 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.R.P.No.3556 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No. 18933 of 2022
1. Palanisamy
2. Arumugam
3. Sagadevan ...Petitioners
Vs
Duraisamy ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code praying to set aside the order and decree dated 20.07.2022 in R.E.P.No.
79 of 2020 in O.S.No. 477 of 1999 on the file of the III Additional District
Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajarajan
For Respondent : No appearance
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3556 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred as against the order
passed in R.E.P.No.79 of 2020 in O.S.No. 477 of 1999 on the file of III
Additional District Munsif Court, Salem dated 20.07.2022, wherein this
petitioners have filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of Civil Procedure
Code to detain the respondent in civil prison for disobeying the order of
permanent injunction. The said petition was dismissed, against which the
present revision petition is filed.
2. The petitioners are the decree holders and respondent is the judgment
debtor. The petitioners have already obtained a decree in O.S.No. 477 of
1999 on the file of III Additional District Court, Salem. As per the decree, the
petitioners are declared as owner of the suit schedule properties and the
respondent was restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the petitioners
after passing a decree dated 19.12.2019 when the petitioners tried to put
compound wall on their property on 18.06.2020, the respondent attempted to
stop the said construction work with the help of rowdy elements. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent also failed to cut trees which were fell on the house of the
petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners complained before the concerned police
official and they advised to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the
petitioners have filed the petition for disobeying the permanent injunction
granted by this Court.
3. Before the Trial Court, the respondent did not appear and he was set
exparte and on the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined
and marked Ex.P1. The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced
on petitioner's side, dismissed the petition by holding that there is no evidence
to prove the disobedience of the decree by the respondent and dismissed the
petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that
the petitioners are the decree holders and they got decree for declaration and
permanent injunction as against the respondent herein through decree dated
19.12.2019 and the respondent also aware of the decree passed against him.
While being so, the petitioners attempted to put up construction in their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
property on 18.06.2020, the respondent stopped the construction with Rowdy
elements. Therefore after knowing the decree for permanent injunction from
interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property, the respondent disturbed the possession of the petitioners.
Therefore, he has to be punished by putting him into Civil Prison. To that
effect, he filed petition before the Execution Court and also examined P.W.1
and P.W.2 and also marked Ex.P1. But the Executing Court without
considering the evidence adduced by the petitioners, dismissed the petition.
5. No representation for the respondent, despite service of notice to
him, he did not appeared and name of the respondent also printed in the cause
list. Therefore, this Court heard the petitioner side and passed the orders on
merits with available records.
6. The petitioners have filed a petition before the Trial Court to punish
the respondent for disobeying the order of the Court passed in O.S.No. 477 of
1999. Before the Trial Court, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and Ex.P1 was marked. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent disobeyed the order of the Court. The Trial Court in the order
after referring the judgement of Arjuna Gounder vs. Govindaraju Reddiar
reported in 1990 (2) LW 98 dismissed the petition by holding that though the
respondent was set ex-parte, it does not relieve the petitioners on their duty to
establish their case with sufficient evidence. Evidence available before the
Court are not sufficient to grant the relief under Order 21 Rule 32.
7. This Court also carefully perused the entire records and the evidence
adduced by the petitioner's side.
8. Though the petitioners have stated that the respondent has stopped
the construction of compound wall and the respondent was set ex-parte, the
evidence of petitioners side are not sufficient to prove that the respondent had
wantonly disobeyed the order of this Court. There is no evidence that where
the construction was put up and how the respondent interfered with the
petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the
duty of the petitioner to establish with sufficient evidence that the respondent
wantonly disobeyed the order of this Court. There is no evidence to prove
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the petitioners attempted to construct the wall in the suit property and the
respondent obstructed the petitioners from constructing the compound wall.
Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is well reasoned order and it
does not warrants any interference. In view of the above said discussions, this
Court is of the opinion that this Civil Revision Petition has no merits and it is
deserves to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently
connected Civil Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
01.08.2024
nsl
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Citation : Yes/No
To
The III Additional District Munsif Court,
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.DHANABAL,J
nsl
01.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
