Madras High CourtCRP/1261/2016dismissed

B. Kalippan v. D. Murali

2016-06-06Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :06.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(NPD)No.1261 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.6971 of 2016 B.Kaliappan ... Petitioner v.

D.Murali ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.03.2016 made in EA.SR.No.14019 of 2006 in E.A.No.1496 of 2014 in E.P.No.4293 of 2012 in O.S.No.10151 of 2010 on the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.P.T.Asha for M/.s. Sarvabhauman Asso.

For Respondent : Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan

O R D E R

Challenging the order passed in EA.SR.No.14019 of 2006 in E.A.No.1496 of 2014 in E.P.No.4293 of 2012 in O.S.No.10151 of 2010 on the file of XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the third party- obstructor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. Pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.10151 of 2010, the first respondent-decree holder filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.4293 of 2012 for taking delivery of possession.

3. When the Execution Court ordered a delivery and when the Court Ameen proceeded to take possession of the property, the revision petitioner filed an obstruction petition, therefore, the respondent-decree holder filed E.A.No.1496 of 2014 under Order 21, Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code for removal of obstruction. In the said application, the revision petitioner filed an application to strike out the names of respondents 1 to 3 in E.A.No.1496 of 2014.

4. Admittedly, the respondents 1 to 3 in E.A.No.1496 of 2014 were defendants in the suit. When the decree was passed as against the defendants, the revision petitioner cannot seek to strike out the names of the

defendants in E.A.No.1496 of 2014. Taking into consideration all these aspects, the Execution Court has rightly rejected the application as not maintainable.

5. Mr.K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Execution Court had already allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 21, Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present Civil Revision Petition

6. However, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index : Yes/No 06.06.2016 Rj To The XI Assistant Judge City Civil Court Chennai

M. DURAISWAMY,J., Rj C.R.P.(NPD)No.1261 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.6971 of 2016 06.06.2016