The defendant in O.S. No. 167 of 2000 is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order of dismissal in I.A. No. 167 of 2012 in O.S. No. 167 of 2000, dated 09.07.2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur.

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he has filed the suit in O.S. No. 167 of 2000 before the learned District Munsif Court, Ambattur for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule of property.

3. The plaintiff has come forward by saying that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 35 years by constructing a house and he has residing there with his wife and children and the documents filed along with the plaint would clearly revealed that the plaintiff is absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property for over 35 years.

4. The respondent/plaintiff further states that the respondent/plaintiff without any right, title or interest in the suit schedule of property, the defendant, who is residing in the said locality has giving trouble continuously to the plaintiff and he had attempted to enter into the suit schedule of property and the said attempt was prevented by the plaintiff with the help of the neighbours of the plaintiff.

5. She has also states that he was a retired Central Government Servant and his three sons are also employed in the Central Government. Therefore, the plaintiff has not interested to have any kind of quarrel or street fight with anyone and taking advantage of this soft and timid nature of the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant is giving trouble to the respondent/plaintiff excepting that the respondent/plaintiff would keep quiet. Therefore, he has filed the above suit for the above prayer.

6. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner/defendant has filed his written statement denying the entire allegations made in the plaint and the petitioner/defendant states that the plaintiff has not in possession of 12 cents of land in S. No. 518/1 alleged to the plaintiff in the plaint. Therefore, the description of the suit schedule of property is vogue.

7. The petitioner/defendant also states that he was in possession of the 6 cents of land in S.No.518/1 of Thirumullaivoyal village and the petitioner/defendant was also issued B memo for the said extent. When the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has taken over the entire survey of land to the extent of 5.26 acres for improvement under the TNUDP Scheme and after layout the said land, allotted 2 cents of land each allottee and the Slum Clearance Board also agreed to sell the land to the allottees on payment of the land cost fixed by the Board to be paid in instalments. The land in possession of the petitioner/defendant has been made into 3 plots and the Plot No.57 was alletted to the petitioner/defendant, Plot No.56 was allotted to one Rajeswari, sister of the defendant and Plot No.74 was allotted to one Subburaju, the defendant s cousin, after the allotment of the above 3 plots, they were residing in the respective plots. Though the plaintiff was allotted 2 cents of land in Plot No.58 and he has filed the suit for 6 cents, which is not in proper.

8. The petitioner/defendant also states that he has already filed the suit in O.S.No.99 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, for a permanent injunction and initially an order of interim injunction was granted by the said Court, later on the said suit was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Ambattur, which was re-numbered and pending for trial. Knowing fully well about the suit filed by the defendant, this respondent/plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S.No.167 of 2000, which is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of C.P.C.

9. The defendant also denied the possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the last 35 years by the plaintiff and the respondent/ plaintiff is entitled to only to the extent of land comprised in Plot No.5