Plaint filed by plaintiff struck of from file.

This is a revision filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The petitioners herein are not parties to the suit, but according to them, they are affected by the interim order passed by the court and inspite of the fact they have filed an impleading application before that court, the court has not passed any order on their application and at the same time has directed the local police to implement the injunction order.

2. The material facts which are necessary for the proper disposal of the revision may be summarised as follows:

3. An area of 4 grounds and 1484 sq. ft. of land in Survey No.4047/1 of Tondiarpet Village originally belonged to one Subramaniya Mudaliar and he sold a portion of the property and retained an area of 2.0240 grounds with him which continued in his possession till his death in the year 1962. It is stated that on his death, he left behind him his daughter-in-law Jeevarathinammal and his two grandsons Vajravelu and Rajavelu as his legal heirs. His only son Vedacahal Mudaliar pre-deceased him.

4. It is further seen that on the death of Subramaniya Mudaliar, three person, by name Duraikannu, Ellappan and Kannappan trespassed into the property and the legal heirs filed 3 suits in O.S. Nos.3775 of 1967, 3817 of 1967 and 3818 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of possession. Though the trial court dismissed the suits, in the appeals, the suits were decreed and all the three trespassers were directed to handover the possession to the legal heirs. Ellappan one of the trespassers did not file any appeal against the said decision and he vacated the premises. The other two trespassers 1972 and 629 of 1972 before this court, but, those appeals were dismissed in limine on 14. 1973. When recovery of possession was sought for by filing E.P. Nos.42 of 1974 and 1788 of 1974, One Krishna Thevar, who is the appellant in C.M.S.A. Nos.30 and 31 of 1984 filed obstruction petition. For removal of the obstruction and for taking police aid, applications in E.A. Nos.4990 of 1974 and 1594 of 1994 were filed by the decree-holders. Without waiting for a decision, Krishna Thevar filed O.S. No.3292 of 1974 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras alleging that he is a direct tenant under the decree-holders and wanted the execution of decree be injuncted. The decision went against him which became final.

5. After disposal of the suit, the decree-holders again filed E.P. Nos.1880 of 1980 and 1889 of 1980 for recovery of possession. The original obstructor Krishna Thevar once again offered obstruction and the decree-holders had again to file applications for removal of obstruction. A detailed enquiry was held and found that the obstructor Krishna Thevar was not having any right over the property and the obstruction was directed to be removed. Against the said decision, Krishna Thevar filed C.M.A. Nos.17 of 1983 and 18 of 1983 which were dismissed. He again preferred C.M.S.A. Nos.30 of 1984 and 31 of 1984 on the file of this Court. The same were also dismissed on 211. 1996.

6. While the matter was pending before the execution court to enquire into the obstruction petition, Krishna Thevar filed O.S. No.6696 of 1983 on the file of the City Civil Court for injunction which also did not succeed. Again after filing the C.M.S.A. Nos.30 and 31 of 1984, the very same person filed C.S. No.685 of 1985 before this Court and wanted to obtain stay of execution proceedings. He also moved an application to have the C.M.S.As. withdrawn to be heard along with C.S. No.685 of 1985. Those applications were also dismissed. He moved an application before the Supreme Court also without any success.

7. In the meanwhile, Krishna Thevar, the obstructor executed a sale deed in favour of minor Saravanan represented by his father Balakrishnan. Both of them impleaded themselves in C.S.No.685 of 1985. The said suit is now transferred to City Ci