- (1.) SEVENTH defendant in O. S. No. 94 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court , Madurai town is the revision petitioner herein. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of india.
(2.) MATERIAL facts which necessitated filing of this revision could be summarised thus: Respondents herein filed O. S. No. 1459 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court , Madurai against petitioner. Suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants, their man and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property therein. Property covered by suit is included in resurvey Nos. 12/1, 12/2, and 12/3. It is not disputed that injunction application filed by plaintiff was dismissed and the matter was taken in C. M. A. and the same was also not successful. It is also not in dispute that a revision was taken against that order which was also dismissed at the admission stage with a direction to dispose of the suit within stipulated time. Whileso, very same plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 94 of 1997 on the file of same court. Even though there are eight defendants in the suit, the relief sought for is only as against the present petitioner. Relief sought for in that suit read thus, '(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant his men and agents from trespassing into or encroaching the suit a-Sched-ule properties in any manner whatsoever; (b) For a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant, his men and agents from altering the physical features of the b-Schedule properties by raising further constructions or in any manner whatsoever; (c) for a permanent injunction restraining the 7th defendant, his men and agents from altering the physical features of the C. Schedule properties by converting the same into house site plots or in any manner whatsoever; (d) For a permanent injunction decree restraining the 8th defendant from registering any document that may be executed by the 7th defendant or any person through him in favour of third parties in respect of the suit properties mentioned in the description of properties herein; (e) Directing the contesting defendants to pay the costs of the present suit; (f) To pass such other and further reliefs as this honourable Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render Justice.' 'a'Schedule property in the plaint is mostly the property in the earlier suit through one more additional survey number is included as resurvey No. 19/3. It was in respect of that property injunction application was dismissed in the earlier litigation. With regard to'b'and'c' schedule items, averments in the plaint may be stated thus: In para IX of the plaint it is said,'at this juncture it is significant to note that this b Schedule suit properties were already taken over by the defendants 1 to 3 even as early as 28. 10. 1982 from its previous owners. Thereafter B Schedule properties belong to and vested with (the defendants 1 to 3) Tamil Nadu Housing board and the possession of the said properties has also been taken by the defendants 1 to 3.'So far as B Schedule property is concerned, plaintiffs allege that defendants 1 to 3 and Madurai Corporation colluded together and changed the revenue records in favour of 7th defendant, who is the petitioner herein and on that basis he is attempting to put up construction in b Schedule properties. With regard to C schedule items, para X of the plaint says thus,'the plaintiffs further submit that the suit C Schedule properties comprised in R. S. No. 18 of 2 in Ponmeni Village, Madurai are situated on the western side of their A Schedule suit properties and these lands including the possession of the same were also already acquired and taken over by the defendants 1 to 3 on 28. 10. 1982 from its previous owners. The defendants 1 to 3, Tamil Nadu Housing Board has also changed the patta, adangal and all other revenue records in its name, thereby the defendants 1 to 3 Tamil nadu Housing Board became the owner of these C Schedule properties. But the 7th defendant recently with the collusion and convenience of the defendants 1 to 3 has trespassed into those lands and encroached the same. The 7th defendant is also now taking speedy steps to convert those C- Schedule suit properties into house site plots in order to sell those lands also to third parties and thereby the 7th defendant is trying to trespass and encroach the plaintiffs A-schedule suit properties.'
(3.) IT is clear from these averments in the plaint that plaintiffs are not claiming any right over B and C Schedule properties and it is admitted in the pleading that defendants 1 to 3, Tamil Nadu Housing Board are the absolute owner and in possession of plaint B and C Schedule properties. In spite of stating that defendants 1 to 3, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board are absolute owners and in possession plaintiffs are not claiming any relief as against them in the suit. Relief is confined only as against petitioner, who is the 7th defendant. Present revision is filed by petitioner alleging when plaintiff is not claiming any right over the property, he cannot maintain suit. It is not public interest litigation. It is further said that with regard to A schedule items, injunction itself has been vacated and when a suit is already pending, second suit for the purpose of injunction is not maintainable and it will amount to abuse of process. When the matter came for admission, I ordered notice of motion and further proceedings in the suit was also stayed. ;