LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-339

BALAMMAL Vs. MUTHIAR BEGUM

Decided On November 22, 2012
BALAMMAL Appellant
V/S
Muthiar Begum Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by the Judgment-debtors/the Defendants in O.S. No. 270 of 2004 before this Court. The Respondents are the Decree-holders/the Plaintiffs in the Suit. The parties herein are referred to as per their rankings in the Suit for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The Suit in O.S. No. 270 of 2004 was filed by the Plaintiffs for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction before the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur. After contest, the Suit was decreed on 22.6.2005. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on Appeal and finally ended up in this Court in S.A. No. 1268 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 27.1.2011, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in the Courts below. Thereafter, an Execution Petition in E.P. No. 107 of 2011 was filed by the Plaintiffs/Decree-holders before the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur to execute the decree obtained in O.S. No. 270 of 2004. Pending E.P., a Suit in O.S. No. 104 of 2012 was filed by the Defendants/Judgment-debtors before Sub-Court, Ranipet, for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the Suit schedule property therein. Their case in that Suit is that the Defendants in that Suit/the Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 270 of 2004 are trying to evict them from their property under the guise of execution of the decree obtained in O.S. No. 270/2004. Thereafter, the Defendants filed an Application in E.A. No. Nil of 2012 in the E.P. No. 107 of 2011 under Order 21, Rule 29 to stay all further proceedings in E.P. No. 107 of 2011 in O.S. No. 270 of 2004, pending disposal of the above Suit in O.S. No. 104 of 2012 filed by the Defendants before the Sub-Court, Ranipet. According to the Judgment-debtors, unless the said Suit is adjudicated upon and decided on merits, the decree obtained in O.S. No. 270 of 2004 should not be allowed to be executed. The Executing Court, by Order dated 6.7.2012 rejected the said Application filed under Order 21, Rule 29, C.P.C., at the pre-numbering stage itself. Aggrieved over the same, the above Revision has been filed by the Judgment-debtors.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Judgment-debtor/the Petitioners herein and Mr. S, Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs/the Respondents herein/the Decree-holders. I have also gone through the documents available on record.