SARATH KAKUMANU Vs. VEERAPPAN ARUNACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in E.A.No.1776 of 2017 in E.P.No.1991 of 2013 on the file of IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) E.A.No.1776 of 2017 was filed under sec. 47 CPC to rectify the survey number of the schedule property as 3958/3 instead of 3958/2 as described in the decree dtd. 17/10/1995. Respondents' predecessor Jayalakshmi Ammal filed a suit in O.S.No.9974 of 1992 against the petitioner for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his agents or anybody claiming through him in any manner using the private road owned by Jayalakshmi Ammal, comprised in R.S.No.3958/2, and for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to remove the iron gate put up in the eastern compound wall of the plaintiff marked in yellow colour in the sketch annexed and to restore the wall in original state. The suit was decreed on 17/10/1995. There was no steps taken for setting aside the exparte decree or challenging the exparte decree by way of appeal. Therefore, the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.9974 of 1992 became final. E.P.No.1191 of 2013 was filed under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC for arresting the petitioner and detain him in civil prison to enforce the decree of permanent injunction.

(3.) Jayalakshmi Ammal purchased the land bearing S.No.3958/3 to an extent of 92 grounds from Mrs.Ravai kannammal and Mrs.Tiripurasundari ammal and Mrs.Shantha kumari. She divided 92 grounds into portions and sold some portions to Consulate General of USA and retained remaining for herself. She laid a private road ie., suit private road for her own use and she granted right of way over the said private road to Consulate General of USA as per sale deed dtd. 5/9/1966. This private road lies at the eastern most of her property in S.No.3958/3 and lies immediately to the east of Door Nos.12 and 13 Bishop Garden. This is shown as red mark in the sketch annexed in the plaint. On the further east, the property of the petitioner in R.S.No.3958/2 situates. Due to typographical error, survey number of the suit property was wrongly mentioned as 3958/2 instead of 3958/3. Therefore, the petition in E.A.No.1776 of 2017 was filed for making rectification in the survey number in the decree as 3958/3 instead of 3958/2. On considering the rival submissions, learned IX Assistant Judge allowed the petition. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.