M.LAKSHMI Vs. M.MUNIYANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both. A resume of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The revision petitioners herein who happened to the the respondents 4 to 6 in the E.P., filed this Civil Revision Petition on the main ground that delivery was ordered by the Executing Court without adhering to the procedures contemplated under law. The suit itself was decreed ex-parte as against the Revision Petitioners. Subsequently, E.P. was filed and in the E.P., the revision petitioners entered appearance. However, the Court passed the following order:

(2.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents / decree holders would narrate that as against the decree passed in the suit by the Court rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff/the first respondent herein for Item-1 of the suit property, an appeal was filed and in that appeal also, the present Revision Petitioners entered appearance through counsel. Ultimately the Appellate Court further granted in favour of the appellant / plaintiff some relief in respect of the first item of the suit property also. Now, the E.P. is filed with regard to the second item of the suit property as against the revision petitioners. In the E.P., they did not file the counter. Thereafter only, delivery was ordered and in such a case, absolutely there is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the Lower Court.

(3.) I would like to fumigate my mind with the decision of this Court in Durairaj and others v. Venugopal and another reported in 2012-3-L.W. 807. Certain excerpts from it, would run thus: