Page 660 - 9. 1st half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table
P. 660

At about 11:45pm, while he was in the kitchen,
                 he heard loud banging noises on his front door and
                 rattling noises on his letterbox. He thought that his
                 cousin had returned from work and was knocking
                 on the door to be let in, he went to the door and
                 spoke in his language but there was no response.
                 He then opened the door and saw the Defendant
                 standing outside his front door. As soon as the
                 Defendant saw him, he ran away. The matter was
                 referred to the police, but no actions took place.
                 18.    It is submitted that the Defendant should
                 have been arrested, kept on remand and brought
                 back to the County Court pursuant to CPR 65.47
                 which states as follows:
                 6.  This rule applies where a person is arrested
                    pursuant to –
                 7.  a power of arrest attached to a provision of an
                    injunction; or
                 8.  a warrant of arrest.
                 9.  The judge before whom a person is brought
                    following his arrest may deal with the matter;
                    or
                 10. adjourn the proceedings.
                 19.    The Police are aware of the injunction
                 order as they have been served with a copy of the
                 same. However, they have failed to enforce the
                 terms of the interim injunction.
                 20.    The Claimant is therefore bringing an
                 application for the Defendant’s committal.


               3
               The 2nd Injunction Order / Lemmy / pub Book Issue: 1!
               Miss Revathy Mathiyalagan/ Page Numbers: p09 to 11 + New Pages: 106,107,108,
               Updated 25/04/2018 by Hand Post into My Letter Box!
               106,
               Dated 20 April 2018
               20/04/2018
               A lie made up in MRS REVATHY MATHIYALAGAN AFFIDAVIT stating that they have
               gotten housed to 109 Burncroft Avenue En3 7jq with her family by the London Borough of
               Waltham Forest and have occupied the Property since
               11 September 2016
               This is not true as can be checked with Mathiyalagans Statements and the fact that they lived
               in the building since
               2013?
               I am the tenant of Flat 117 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield, EN3 7JQ. My flat is located two floors
               above Mr Cordell (thereafter ’the Defendant’). I live there with my husband Markandu and
               my child who is 3 years old. I have been housed to this Property with my family by the
               London Borough of Waltham Forest and have occupied the Property since
               11 September 2016
   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665