te Court cannot receive additional documents.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.252 of 1995 in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu, aggrieved by the order dated 7. 1996 passed by the learned Principle District Judge, Chengalpattu in C.M.A.No.55 of 1996 reversing the order dated 211. 1995 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in I.A.No.350 of 1995 in O.S.No.252 of 1995 and dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs i.e., I.A.No.350 of 1995 for grant of injunction.

2. The parties in this order will be referred to as they were arrayed in the suit itself.

.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing to this civil revision petition are the following :-

.The plaintiffs have filed the suit O.S.No.252 of 1995 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu for grant of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents and representatives, from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit property, stating that they purchased the suit property measuring an extent of 6 acres 95 cents under six sale deeds. In the plant the suit land is described as A-B-C-D-E-F-G. Their vendors delivered possession of the suit property and that the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. After purchase of the property they have enclosed the entire area with fence on the north and south, and with a compound wall on the east and west, with a wicket gate. They have also painted on the wall "BEACH STATE SAND AVENUE". They have kept a watchman over the property who is residing in the suit property itself. The defendant having no interest in the suit property tried to interfere with the possession on 210. 1995 which was prevented by the plaintiff. They apprehend that the defendant may repeat his attempts. Hence an application was filed in the suit for temporary injunction.

4. The defendant denied that the plaintiffs purchased the property under six sale deeds. He also denied the allegations that the vendors of the plaintiffs delivered possession, and that the plaintiffs are in possession of the same. The defendant states that the allegation that after purchase the plaintiffs have enclosed the area with barbed wires and that they have put up a watchman quarters and the watchman is residing in the property are not true. The plaintiffs have no title to the suit property. Their vendors were not in possession of the suit property. The power of attorney of the plaintiffs is the plaintiffs own brother. The defendant has purchased 4 acres and 60cents in Survey No.l68/3E-1A and 1A1A with specific boundary under sale deed dated 20.11.1986 and took possession of the same. The plaintiffs have not properly described the suit property.

.5. The defendant further stated that his wife viz., Chandrika purchased an extent of 96 cents in Survey No. 168/3E1A from one Damodaran and 86 cents in the same survey No. from one Rajendran, and she is in possession and enjoyment of the property of those extents. The devendant has enclosed the property by putting up a compound wall and has put up a small gate on the east and a big gate on the west, having put up wire fence with stone pillars on the south and north. He has also proposed to put up a guest house and garden in the suit property. He has also appointed a watchman to look after the property. He has put up the name board LIKHAMI HOLDINGS. The patta and revenue records stand in the name of the wife of the defendant. After obtaining the injunction order, in order to take forceful possession on 111. 1995, at the instigation of the plaintiffs, the name board was demolished. The defendant is in lawful possession of the suit property.

6. The trial Court on 211. 1995 had allowed the petition granting temporary injunction. As already stated above, against the said order, C.M.A. No.55 of 1995 was filed in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. In the said appeal, before the learn