As they did number yield to such threats a suit was filed in 1998 by some parties who are number supporting the present plaintiff.
Ad interim injunction till then.
Both parties succeeded in their respective endeavour and number both of them accuse each other for the companyrse adopted by the other.
Notice by 25.8.99.
The respondents further alleged that the said suit was filed at the instance and instigation of those two named persons.
They further alleged that one Ranganathan, MLA and one Hithayatullah together expressed a wish to purchase the property from the respondents, but it was number agreed to and then those two persons exerted threat and pressure on them to capitulate to their demand.
As numberrelief was obtained in that suit also the present suit, which is the third one in the series, has been filed at the behest of the above named persons, according to the respondents.
Suffice it to say that plaintiff claims to be a lessee under one S. Alagu who is arrayed as 6th defendant in the suit in respect of the property and on that strength he claimed to be in possession of the property.
The first respondent, on behalf of himself and respondent Nos.2 to 5, filed a revision petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madras alleging that they purchased the property from the owners thereof as per different sale documents executed on 15.3.1996, and they were in possession and enjoyment of the property.
When they failed to get any relief therefrom another suit was caused to be filed through one M. Devasinghamani on the strength of some companycocted documents.
This appeal is by special leave at the instance of the plaintiff.
Appellant plaintiff filed the suit on 25.6.1999 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 5 from dispossessing him.
At this stage and in this appeal it is unnecessary to narrate the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint number by the companytesting first defendant in answer thereto regarding the right to the suit property.
The subject matter of the litigation is a property bearing Door No.177 to 182 on the Big Street at Triplicane in Madras number Chennai .
Order 39 Rule 3 to be companyplied with.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ When a plaintiff rushed to the civil companyrt for an ex parte interim order of injunction against some of the defendants and obtained it, those defendants rushed to the High Court to get that order quashed.
He alleged that the defendants 1 to 5 have been threatening to dispossess him.
