Filing multiple suits and obtaining interim injunctions to prevent an auction, even though the plaintiff has admitted in previous proceedings that he is only a licensee and that his license has ended years before, amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court.

1. This is a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order of the lower Court in I.A. No. 499 of 1996 in O.S.No. 396 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Ranipet.

.2. The material facts on the basis of which this revision is filed may be summarised as follows:- The petitioner is the Ranipet Municipality represented by its Commissioner. The plaint schedule property admittedly belongs to the petitioner. It is stated to be a weekly market. It is said that the respondents grandfather took the vacant land on lease from the petitioner at Ranipet and the same was being used by him till 1966. Even in the year 1960, the respondents grand-father had put up some superstructures on the site and he has been using the same as the weekly market till his lifetime in 1970. After his death, his grand-mother continued the arrangement and now it is the case of the respondent that he has been making use of the same and whatever amount is payable to the petitioner is also being paid. It is said that the respondent is in possession for the last sixteen years and his ancestors possessed the same for more than twenty years. It is averred that the respondent was repeatedly called upon by the traders to put up some building and sheds. Since the petitioner was not keen in helping the traders, the respondent, for smooth and effective functioning of the cattle shanty, had pulled down the temporary shed and other amenities when they became old. It is said that the respondent put up pucca construction in the land for the purpose of weekly market at his own cost, by spending about Rs. 2,50,000 for the above said construction. The respondent is collecting charges from the traders, those who come and sell their goods in the weekly market by virtue of the lease. On 212. 1993, the petitioner issued a notification, wherein it was informed that a public auction is to be held on 112. 1994 in respect of the land, since the conduct of the petitioner was arbitrary, the respondent filed a suit C.S. No. 134 of 1994 and obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioner from conducting the auction. The auction was stopped and as the notification was no more in force, O.S.No. 134 of 1994 was also withdrawn. A further notification was issued by the petitioner on 112. 1994 proposing to hold an auction on 2. 1995. Again the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 2244 of 1995 and obtained an order of interim injunction in the City Civil Court. As the notification was no more in force, O.S.No. 2244 of 1995 was also withdrawn subsequently. Again the petitioner proposed to hold an auction on 9. 1995, wherein it was stated that the petitioner proposed to hold an auction on 29. 1995. The respondent again filed another litigation and obtained interim order. Finally, that was also withdrawn. The cause of auction for the suit O.S.No. 396 of 1996 arose on 29. 1996, when the petitioner again issued a public notification stating that it intended to hold an auction on 110. 1996. A letter was sent by the respondent on 29. 1996 to the petitioner informing that he has put up superstructure and without compensating him, the auction should not be held. When the petitioner confirmed its intention to hold the auc tion, the present suit is filed for the very same purpose viz., for declaration of auction notice dated 29. 1996 published in "Dina Malar" as null and void, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their men, agent, servants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the weekly shanty at Ranipet more fully described in the schedule hereunder except by due process of law by conducting auction, for costs of the suit etc.

3. In the counter statement, the petitioner seriously opposed the claim of the respondent. It is stated that even though the Municipality had filed a caveat as O.P. No. 55 of 1996, the lower Court, without taking into consideration of the same, passed an ex parte order