AMARESAN Vs. S NAGAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 19.02.2010 passed in E.A.No.127 of 2007 in E.P.No.70 of 2003 in O.S.No.199 of 1993 by the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee, this civil revision petition is focussed. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) PER contra, challenging and impugning the contentions/allegations including the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner herein, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would advance his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus: The Executing Court correctly fumigating its mind with the proper proposition of law governing the adjudication relating to application under Section 47 of CPC, dismissed the said application and in such a case there is no merit in this revision. The decree passed is not even an ex parte decree and it is a contested one. Even assuming it is an ex parte decree, the defendant has not raised his little finger in getting that ex parte decree set aside. Trite the proposition of law is that a decree of the Court whether ex parte or otherwise, should be adhered to by the defendant and he cannot raise his accusative finger as against the lower Court which passed the decree before the Executing Court which is expected to execute only the decree and it cannot assume the role of an appellate forum. The allegations as found set out in the application under Section 47 of CPC are all untenable. Accordingly, reiterating the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would pray for dismissal of the application and also he would pray for direction to the lower Court to expedite the process in the E.P. now pending before the lower forum.