NALLASIVAM Vs. DAKSHINAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the decreeholder/plaintiff in O.S. No. 461 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee. He filed the execution petition in E.P. No. 587 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, . Poonamallee for delivery of the property as per the decree and since the second respondent obstructed the delivery sought for by the decree-holder in E.A. No. 800 of 1985, he filed the petition in E.A. No. 1390 of 1985 under Order 21, Rule 97 and Section 151, CPC for removal of obstruction and delivery of possession of the property. Since the said application was not filed within 30 days under Article 129 of the Limitation Act, the executing Court dismissed the same. Hence the revision petitioner preferred the revision against the said order in C.R.P. No. 816 of 1997. At the time of admission stage itself, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court rejected the same by an order dated 31 -7-1997 and ordered notice of motion in this revision.

(3.) The only question to be decided in this revision petition is whether the revision is maintainable in law in view of the provision under Order 21, Rule 103, CPC for the simple reason that there had been an adjudication made under Order 21, Rule 98, CPC by the executing Court in the impugned order in E.A. No. 800 of 1985 wherein it was held that since the decree-holder is not entitled to maintain the petition in E.A. No. 1390 of 1985 for removal of the obstruction, consequently he is not entitled to any relief in the petition to order for delivery of the property as per the sale certificate.