THANIKACHALAM ALIAS P T CHALAM Vs. A MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order and decreetal order dated 27.06.2005 made in E.A. No.1365 of 2005 in E.P. No.1584 of 2004 in O.S. No.6935 of 1996 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) IT is seen that the Execution Petition in E.P. No.1584 of 2004 was filed by the respondent/decree holder, pursuant to the decree passed in O.S. No.6935 of 1996 for specific performance of the contact. The Execution Application in E.A. No.1365 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 read with Rule 14 of CPC., seeking permission to examine one Doctor Reginald, if he is not available to examine any other competent Doctor attached to the Appolo Hospital, No.21 Greames Lane, Chennai-600 006, to speak about the discharge summary report dated 02.06.1991.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder, the claim of the petitioners is legally not maintainable and that the same is only a delay tactics adopted by the petitioners. In the impugned order, the court below has specifically stated that the very same petitioners have filed a similar petition before the trial court during the life time of the deceased. However, they failed to proceed with the same and hence the petition was dismissed. Even, the deceased was not produced before the court below for holding enquiry, prior to the death of the said deceased on the alleged reason.