CANNOU PARIMALA RANI Vs. ILAMATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal is a painful pointer of how a litigant starts facing misery after obtaining a decree from the Court. This Court is reminded of the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd., reported in 2002 1 SCC 662 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "indeed his difficulties in real and practical sense arise after getting the decree". The Code of Civil Procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends. Unfortunately, in many cases, the procedure acts like a penal enactment where the litigant is actually punished and made to run from pillar to post to get the fruits of the decree. This Court is forced to start this judgment with this somber note since a mortgage decree that was obtained in the year 1979 in O.S.No.499/1978, is yet to see the light of the day and 43 years has gone by. If a litigant is made to undergo this mental agony, no wonder people will lose faith in civil litigations and will resort to short cut methods to achieve even those reliefs to which they are rightfully entitled to. As the facts of this case unfurls, one will understand how difficult it is to get a decree executed with the available procedural law in force.

(2.) The 9th respondent in the petition filed by the respondents 1 to 10 to remove the obstruction, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

(3.) Thiscase has a chequered history and the same is briefly stated hereunder: