KAMALAVATHY Vs. B SUBRAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE C.R.P.No.280 of 2001 is against E.P.No.336 of 1997 which has been filed against order dated 5.12.2000 directing the petitioner to remove the illegal construction to the extent of 200 sq.ft. and to deliver vacant possession on or before 4.2.2001. C.R.P.No.601 of 2001 (C.R.P.S.R.No.99845 of 2000) has been filed against the order passed in Section 47 Petition in the same proceedings as referred to above. This was filed with a delay of 787 days in filing the revision petition. Both the counsel have argued this civil revision petition also in view of the fact C.R.P.. No. 280 of 2000 is only an order consequent to the dismissal of the Section 47 petition. THE delay is condoned and the office is directed to number the civil revision petition. This has since been numbered as C.R.P.No.601 of 2001.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: THE petitioner is the defendant against whom the respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction to remove the illegal construction put up by the defendant to the extent of 200 sq.ft. on the southern side of the plaintiffs plot more particularly described in the Schedule A herein abutting the northern side of the defendant's plot, more particularly described in the Schedule B herein and for delivery of vacant possession of the aforesaid 200 sq. ft. THE suit was filed in 1989 and was numbered as O.S.No.4342 of 1989. An ex parte decree was passed on 1.7.1994. It appears that an application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed along with which the written statement was also filed. But this application was dismissed and the revision preferred to the High Court was also dismissed. THErefore, the ex parte decree dated 1.7.1994 has become final. THEse facts are not in dispute.

(3.) THE Court below had dismissed this application on the ground that in 1989 an Advocate Commissioner had gone to the property, inspected with the help of an Engineer and assessed the encroachment and had also filed the report and also that the petition itself had been filed only with the view to drag the proceedings.