RAIHAN BEEVI Vs. C. RATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE before admission was served on the respondent The respondent is also represented by a counsel. Arguments advanced by Mr.R.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Thiruvenkataswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein are heard. The grounds of revision and the materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.42 of 2006 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Mannargudi. In the said suit, a declaration declaring the easementary right claimed by the respondent herein was made and a consequent relief of direction to the revision petitioner to remove the thatched shed put up over the said property causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the easementary right was also issued. Such a decree came to be passed on 13.2.2008. On appeal to the Sub Court, Mannargudi in A.S.No.18 of 2008, the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed on 10.11.2008. As against the decree of the lower appellate court confirming the decree of the Trial court, the revision petitioner preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.1231 of 2009.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif, after hearing both sides, came to a correct conclusion that neither the Trial Court nor the court to which the decree has been sent for execution shall have the power to stay the execution after the aggrieved party has moved the appeal forum with an appeal along with an application to stay the execution of the decree. The forum in which the revision petitioner could seek the remedy is not the executing court and it is only the High Court before which the second appeal is pending.