8.The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent further submitted that in S.A.No.581 of 2005, this Court had held that the property mentioned in the earlier suit in O.S.No.453 of 1984 in which the petitioner had obtained an exparte decree, is completely different and the property in survey No.557/3 to the extent of 59.5 cents are not the suit property in O.S.No.453 of 1984. It is admitted by the petitioner in the earlier suit in O.S.No.453 of 1984 that the survey No.557/3 was not subject matter of the suit property. From the categorical findings of the Civil Courts, it is proved that the property in survey No.557/3 is that of the 3 rd respondent. Further, the 3 rd respondent in his petition in Crl.O.P.No.14020 of 2016 in paragraph No.3 clearly mentioned that the suit in O.S.No.68 of 2013 was filed by her, which was pending before the learned District Munsif, Sathyamangalam for bare injunction. Hence, there has been no suppression of facts and this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14020 of 2016 on the finding of the Civil Courts and considering the merits of the case, had directed the 3 rd respondent to lodge a fresh complaint containing the same contents of the complaint dated 27.06.2016 to the 2 nd respondent Police. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint and after taking the service of surveyor and following the due process of law, the lands were surveyed and earmarked. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent had taken possession of the same. During the enquiry conducted by the 2 nd respondent Police, the petitioner submitted his representation with false allegation and failed to mention about the earlier findings of the civil proceedings. Thus, the petitioner to circumvent the law and to somehow continue to encroach upon the property of the 3 rd respondent by all means has filed the above petition.
