IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.11.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA O.A.No.645 of 2011 in C.S.No.521 of 2011 ORDER This application has been moved by the applicants under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules, read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, for interim injunction restraining the first respondent, his men, servants and agents from any manner disturbing or interfering with the applicants/plaintiffs and their tenants' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the applicants/plaintiffs half share of the property, more fully described in the schedule. 2. The plaintiffs / applicants have filed a suit for partition, claiming half share in the suit property. It is not disputed that the defendants are owners of other half share of the suit property, therefore, prayer made for injunction with regard to suit properties, is not maintainable. 3. Even otherwise, the applicants / plaintiffs have not placed any documents on record in proof of ownership, which is claimed by the applicants to be their absolute property. 4. In support of this application, the applicants/plaintiffs placed reliance on exparte decree, passed against the applicants / plaintiffs on an application, moved by a third party, claiming to be the tenant of the property. 5. The defendants / non applicants were not party to the exparte decree. The applicants/plaintiffs, therefore, have no right to claim any right under the said decree as a tenant can be a party to the suit for partition. 6. In case tenant is in possession of the property, it is for him to seek protection in accordance with law. 7. The applicants / plaintiffs certainly cannot seek injunction against his dispossession, specially when the plaintiffs had not contested the suit filed by the alleged tenant, claiming injunction against non applicants / defenants. 8. Averments made in the application itself shows that it is an admitted case of the applicants / plaintiffs that they are not in posession of the property. 9. The application, for seeking injunction against interference in the possession of tenant, is not maintainable in absence of tenant being party. As observed above, tenant cannot be a party to suit for partition. 10. The applicants / plaintiffs do not have prima facie case nor balance of convenience can be said to be in favour of the applicants / plaintiffs, as the tenant, if validly inducted, can protect his possession in accordance withlaw independently. 11. Consequently, this application is dismissed. 12. The order passed herein above would have no effects on the third party or the alleged tenant, as he would be liberty to move appropriate forum to protect his possession, if any such tenant is in possession, as the defendants / non applicants claim to be in possession of the suit property. No costs. kal ar