The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 22.4.2009 passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruvalur, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 5.10.2007 passed in I.A.No.346 of 2007 in O.S.No.66 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiff unable to get an interim order in her favour in the trial court as well as in the first appellate court has filed this Civil Revision Petition. The suit O.S.No.66 of 2007 has been filed praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's suit property in any manner whatsoever. I.A.No.346 of 2007 was filed temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The I.A.No.346 of 2007 was resisted by the first respondent/defendant and the trial Court dismissed the Application filed for temporary injunction on the ground that the petitioner/plaintiff has not filed any documents to show that the petitioner's husband, who settled the property in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, is the successor in interest to the ancestral property. The petitioner/plaintiff has also not produced proper documents to establish that she was in possession of the property. Certain documents were filed by the respondents/defendants to prove the title to the property. In such view of the matter, the application for temporary injunction was dismissed.
3. In appeal, the first appellate court after going through the documents and pleadings, concurred with the finding of the trial court and observed that there was some discrepancy in the patta issued in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff's husband and also taking note of the fact that the record of cultivation Ex.P-4 (Adangal), which was filed to show that the petitioner/plaintiff was cultivating the property from 2002, is dated 31.10.2008. Therefore, the first appellate court came to conclusion that merely on the basis of the subsequent documents, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot claim any interim relief as prayed for. The right, title and interest of the petitioner/plaintiff was doubted by the courts below. Consequently, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal with a direction that the suit itself should be disposed off within three months.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. The admitted case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the patta was changed by the District Revenue Officer during the pendency of the suit and Ex.P-4 is the only document on the basis of which interim order is sought for. Even in the grounds of revision, it has been clearly stated that the issue raised can be decided after a full-fledged trial based on record. Petitioner/plaintiff states that she has a prima facie case for interim order. In this case, the suit claim is based on documents which are disputed by the respondents/ defendants. Even the first appellate court as well as the trial court are of the opinion that the documents have to be tested in the trial. The courts below did not find a prima facie case for grant of interim relief which is discretionary
5. In such circumstances, this court finds no infirmity in the order of the first appellate court dismissing the appeal. The petitioner/ plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for interim relief. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order which is under challenge.
6. Finding no merit, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.