VENKATACHALAM Vs. C.KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the limited scope of the Revision and the nature of the order that is challenged, notice to the respondents is deemed unnecessary.

(2.) The challenge in this revision is to the returns made by the learned II Additional Sub Judge, Coimbatore on a petition filed by the petitioner seeking restoration of E.A.No.52 of 2013 which was dismissed for default on 15/3/2018. The said Execution Application was filed by the petitioners who are third parties under Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C.,. The petitioners filed another application under Order XXI Rule 106 r/w 151 of C.P.C., seeking restoration of the execution application that was dismissed for default. The trial Court returned the applications, requiring the petitioners to show cause, (i) how the petition is maintainable after possession has been delivered and recorded.

(3.) The same was represented answering the quarries raised and relying upon the Judgment reported in 2011 (6) CTC 268, wherein this Court had held that Sec. 5 of Limitation Act is applicable as per Rule 105 (4) of C.P.C. There is no bar for the Court to hear an application under Order XXI Rule 97 after delivery of possession as the Court will have power to order restitution under Rule 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C.