THANGASAMY Vs. MADASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Madasami, the first respondent herein obtained money decree against Thangasamy, the petitioner herein in O.S.No.566 of 1990. In execution proceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2000, he attached the property in question. The said property was purchased by Anthonysamy alias Hariharan, the second respondent herein, in Court auction. In pursuance of the Court's order, the Court Ameen delivered the property to the second respondent. Questioning the identity of the property, the petitioner applied a petition challenging the delivery in E.A.No.78 of 2002. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Munsif. Hence, this civil revision petition.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the property in question, bearing Door No.6/56-G, was delivered instead of the house bearing Door No.6/56 and as such, the said property has to be delivered back to the petitioner.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order dated 1.8.2003 in E.A.No.78 of 2002 , learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the learned District Munsif, instead of invoking Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code for re-delivery, wrongly applied Order 21 Rules 99, 100 and 101 C.P.C. and dismissed the petition, and as such, the order impugned is liable to be interfered with.