VEERAPPAN CHETTIAR Vs. CHOLACHI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are against the same order passed in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 81 of 1096 of the Additional District court of Quilo n. A. S. No. 537 of 1962 is by defendants 29 and 30, the legal representatives of the 4th defendant, and A. S. No. 23 is by the additional plaintiff and the 27th defendant.

(2.) THE order from which these appeals are taken, disposed of certain execution applications filed by certain defendants in the case; E. P. Nos. 142 and 148 of 1950 by the second defendant, E. P. No. 184 of 1952 by defendants 24 to 26 and E. P. No. 97 of 1953 by the 27th defendant.

(3.) FURTHER points arising for determination can be grouped under the following five heads. (1) The application made by the second defendant in E. P. No. 148 of 1950 has been filed by him on the basis of an order appointing him as receiver, passed by the Sivagang a Sub Court in O. S. No. 74 of 1923. That Sub Court is a foreign court and on the basis of the order passed by that foreign court, it is urged that the second defendant is not entitled to execute the decree in this case. (2) The execution applicatione. P. No. 142 of 1950 has been filed by the second defendant on his behalf as well as on behalf of defendants 1 and 3. This application is not maintainable because defendant 1 had transferred his interest in the decree in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 3 his interest in favour of the 27th defendant. (3) E. P. No. 81 of 1962 had been filed by the plaintiff for executing the decree on plaintiff's favour. The plaintiff after the order under appeal was passed filed a memo in court on 6th October 1962 reading as follows: and prayed that execution need not be proceeded with then. The court after recording the memo on 6th October 1962 passed another order on the same day on E. P. No. 81 of 1962 to the effect 'dismissed' and this order, it is urged, is merely an administrative order and it has not judicially disposed of the execution petition, and in view of the questions raised in these appeals it is requested that it may be made clear that in the event of this case being remitted back for farther investigation, the execution petition, 81 of 1962 filed by the plaintiff may be directed to be dealt with afresh disregarding the dismissal order passed on 6th October 1962.