The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in so far as it relates to the finding recorded therein that the learned Subordinate Judge is not empowered to deal with the present complaint purportedly about the non-joinder of the necessary party in the suit and to further direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal to conduct preliminary enquiry under Sec.340 of Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The brief facts which are necessary and essential for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner was carrying on business of manufacturing cosmetics under due licence. During the course of such business, when the petitioner was looking for a place to set up a factory, one Mr. Hariharan offered to give his land measuring 3055 square feet in Survey No.136V/3A1 of Pothanur Village, Namakkal District. After deliberations, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.300/- apart from payment of taxes, maintenance and other charges, which worked out to Rs.1,200/- per month. Thus, the petitioner has to pay Rs.1,500/- per month in the form of lease rent. The lease was for a period of five years. Upon taking possession, the petitioner had put up a superstructure with hollow blocks, obtained electricity service connection in his name and also sunk a bore well by incurring huge expenditure. When the business was flourishing, the said Hariharan and his family members expressed their intention to become a partner of the business run by the petitioner. Accordingly, on 19.11.2008, the said Hariharan, his mother, his sister and two others were inducted as partners in the business run by the petitioner. However, before the expiry of the lease period, the said Hariharan made attempts to dispossess the petitioner, which necessiated him to file the suit in O.S. No. 52 of 2014 before the learned District Munsif Court, Paramathi, Namakkal District for a bare injunction restraining the said Hariharan, who was cited as defendant in the suit, from in any manner dispossessing him without following the due process of law.

(ii) According to the petitioner, aggrieved by the filing of the suit, the said Hariharan along with his family members have created forged and fabricated sale agreements as if the lease hold property which is in possession of the petitioner was agreed to be sold in favour of one K. Senthil Kumar on 26.05.2012 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. On the basis of such false and fabricated agreement of sale, the said K. Senthil Kumar has filed a suit in O.S. No. 213 of 2014 for specific performance against Hariharan and his family members. According to the petitioner, the said suit in O.S. No. 213 of 2014 is a collusive suit to some how or the other to drive the petitioner out of the property in question. In the said suit in O.S. No. 213 of 2014, an exparte decree was passed on 26.08.2014 and to execute the same, R.E.P. No. 76 of 2014 was filed. Ultimately, a sale deed dated 30.04.2015 was executed in favour of the said K. Senthil Kumar. On the strength of the sale deed dated 30.04.2015, without any order for delivery of possession, the said Senthil Kumar, Hariharan and other rowdy elements dispossessed the petitioner from the lease hold property where the petitioner had stocked raw materials, finished goods, machines and other accessories worth Rs.15,00,000/-. After taking possession by illegal means, the said Senthil Kumar and others have also demolished the hollow block put up by the petitioner.

(iii) According to the petitioner, he came to know that the property which was leased out to him belonged to one M. Karthikeyan by virtue of a sale deed dated 14.02.1991 registered in his name vide document No.201 of 1991 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Paramathi and not in favour of Hariharan. It also came to light that the said M. Karthikeyan has executed a registered mortgage deed dated 13.12.1993 for obtaining a loan from Velur Urban Cooperative Bank