ELUMALAIYAN Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice before admission was given and the first respondent/ decree holder is represented by counsel. The second respondent remains ex-parte. The first respondent, claiming title to the property, which according to her was not in dispute, filed the suit in O.S.No.565/1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhavani for recovery of possession of the suit property from the second respondent.

(2.) The second respondent contested the suit and lost his legal battle with the result that the suit was decreed as prayed for by a judgment and decree dated 27.07.1990. On appeal in A.S.No.36/1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gopichettipalayam, the lower appellate court confirmed the decree by a judgment and decree dated 15.12.1993. Thereafter, the second respondent preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.542/1994 on the file of this court. The said second appeal came to be dismissed on 18.01.2005. Thereafter, the first respondent/decree holder levied execution by preferring E.P.No.34/2008.

(3.) When the Execution Petition was pending, the revision petitioner, claiming to have got leasehold right in respect of the suit property, filed an application in E.A.No.4/2010 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC obstructing the execution contending that he has got a leasehold right in respect of the suit property by virtue of a Lease Deed dated 05.01.1990 executed by the second respondent in favour of the revision petitioner. Enquiry in the said application was in progress and the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.48/2012 in the said EA. for reopening the enquiry in the application in E.A.No.4/2010 for leading additional evidence through the scribe of the Lease Deed allegedly executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the revision petitioner. The learned Principal District Munsif, chose to hear the said application and dismiss the same by an order dated 07.08.2012, which is impugned in the present revision.