IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Subramania Assary .. Appellant Vs.

1.The Commissioner, Oulgeret Municipality, Oulgeret Commune, Pondicherry.

2.Vaithianathan

3.Manickam

4.Santhamurthy

5.Thiyanayagi (alias) Vijaya .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.92 of 1998, dated 30.04.1999 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, and O.S.No.62 of 1995 dated 30.06.1998, on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry and decree the suit as prayed for.

For Appellant : Mr.Mohammed Arshadullah Sheriff for Mr.R.Kamalesh Kannan For RR 2 & 4 : Ms.Sumithra

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of III Additional Judge at Pondicherry in A.S.No.92 of 1998 dated 30.4.1999, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry in O.S.No.62 of 1995 dated

30.6.1998.

2.The plaintiff is the appellant.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

4.The plaintiff presented the suit for the following reliefs:-

"1) Set aside the order passed in the Proceedings initiated by the defendant on No.36-41/DS/OM/91 dated

30.11.94.

2) Pass a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No.2 to 5 his agents or anyone claiming through them restraining them from interfering with the 'B' Schedule property in any manner whatsoever until the disposal of the 2nd appeal S.A.No.29 of 1989 which is pending before the High Court of Judicate at Madras.

3) Or pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

5.It is the case of the plaintiff herein that the present defendants as plaintiffs, had presented a suit in O.S.No.1175 of 1983, on the file of the II Additional District Munsif at Pondicherry against him. The said suit was decreed. The plaintiff herein had preferred an appeal against the decree in A.S.No.29 of 1986, to the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry. The said Appeal was allowed, and the suit in O.S.No.1175 of 1983 stood dismissed. The second appeal filed by the defendants had been admitted by this court and is pending in S.A.No.29 of 1989.

6.He pleaded that defendants 2 to 5 (wrongly recorded in the plaint as defendants 2 to 6) are highly influential persons in Pondicherry. They had convinced the first defendant to issue a notice of eviction of the plaintiff from the ‘B’ schedule mentioned property. It was also issued on 11.06.1991. He pointed out that earlier, a similar order was passed by the first defendant, against which, he had preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, in C.M.A.No.11 of 1991. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the 1^st defendant to conduct a fresh enquiry as contemplated under Section 248(1) of the Pondicherry Village and Commune Panchayat Act, 1973. Yet again, the first defendant had issued a Form ‘A’ notice on 19.05.1993, alleging that the plaintiff had encroached into the road portion to an extent of 23 Centiares, and that the first defendant is not entitled to issue the same. He added that he was called to appear for an enquiry on 15.04.1993. At the time of enquiry, the first defendant did not give him a copy of the report on measurement of the lands said to have been surveyed by the Deputy Surveyor. As the report was not given to him upon request, the plaintiff pleaded that the first respondent had exceeded his powers in the eyes of law. The first defendant adjourned the proceedings to 12.04.1994. In the meantime, the first defendant was won over by defendants 2 to 5 and summons were issued to the plaintiff. Even on 12.04.1994, the plaintiff was neither heard, nor given the measurement report.

7.The plaintiff further alleged that defendants 2 to 4 had presen