1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1361 of 2011 Thavamani rep. through her power agent Sekar. .. Petitioner Vs. Ramar .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 19.02.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.115 of 2008 in Original Suit No.182 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi For Respondent : Mr.V.Barathidasan ORDER Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 19.02.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.115 of 2008 in Original Suit No.182 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.182 of 2006 on the file of the Court below for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein an executable decree has been passed. After passing a decree in Original Suit No.182 of 2006, on 18.10.2007, the respondent herein and others have tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the suit property. Under the said circumstances, the present petition in Execution Petition No.115 of 2008 has been filed under Order XXI, Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.182 of 2006 for getting the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the present respondent has been shown as defendant. In Original Suit No.182 of 2006, an executable decree has been passed and subsequently on 18.10.2007, the respondent and others have tried to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in the suit property and due to that the present petition has been filed under Order XXI, Rule 32(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 so as to punish the respondent, but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. The consistent case of the petitioner is that on 18.10.2007, the respondent and others have tried to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the attempt made on the side of the respondent and others have been averted by the petitioner and others. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. On the side of the revision petitioner, Ex.P.1 has been filed. Ex.P.1 is nothing, but a receipt given by the concerned police. No copy of complaint has been marked on the side of the revision petitioner and further in the petition it has been stated that at the time of attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner by the respondent and others, some elders have intervened and none of them has been examined on the side of the revision petitioner. Therefore except the affidavit filed on the side of the revision petitioner and his sole evidence, no other piece of evidence is available for the purpose of corroborating the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner. Without corroborating the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court cannot automatically come to a conclusion that the incident which has been mentioned in the affidavit is genuine. 6. The Court below after considering the infirmities found on the side of the revision petitioner, has rightly dismissed Execution Petition No.115 of 2008. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Execution Petition No.115 of 2008 in Original Suit No.182 of 2006 by the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam is confirmed. However the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a similar petition if subsequent obstruction is caused by the respondent. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Uthamapalayam. Smn SR : 24.11.2011 : 2p/2c C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1361 of 2011 11.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/