DURAISAMY NAIDU Vs. SIVAPRAKASA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs challenging the very filing of a petition by the respondents herein as third parties under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. before the Executing Court seeking adjudication of their right, title and interest over the subject matter property. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the very petition filed by the respondents herein before the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. is not maintainable as they are only the vendors of the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 450 of 1983 filed by the petitioners. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Court below ought not to have entertained the application under Order 21 Rule 97 by issuing notice to the petitioners. It is his further contention that as there is no similar provision as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of this petition he has chosen to file the present civil revision petition to challenge the very filing of the above application.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Ravichandran appearing for the contesting respondent submitted that these respondents are having title to the property and what was conveyed to the defendant was only a part of the property and not its entirety.