MANJULABHEN SHAH Vs. PRAKASH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the Docket Order, dtd. 2/3/2024 in E.P.No.1462 of 2016, on the file of the X Asst.City Civil Judge, Chennai, in O.S.No.362 of 2006, on the file of the IV Asst.City Civil Judge, Chennai.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Suit 2nditem property is a pathway, common to the Plaintiff, the Defendants and the Petitioners herein. The Plaintiff has falsely claimed that he has exclusive possession of the suit item second property and obtained the impugned decree by playing fraud upon the Trial Court. The Plaintiff clandestinely obtained Patta No.TR/518/2004-05, dtd. 6/12/2004, in respect of a portion of 54.4 sq.mts., in the Suit Item No.2 property. However the said Patta was cancelled by the Tahsildar, Puraswalkam in Proceedings No.(B2)/0119/2017, dtd. 14/2/2017, by holding that the parent documents submitted by the Plaintiff showed that the Plaintiff only had a right of easement and not ownership and also pointing out that in O.S No.3672 of 2006, the Plaintiff did not claim ownership in the above suit. The prayer clause (i) in the above suit is directly in respect of the Petitioner's own property, as it is to remove the gate in their own property and as such, the suit prayer clause (i) directly and adversely affect the interests of the Petitioners making the Petitioners necessary parties to the above suit as on the date of filing of the suit itself. But, without the Petitioners being made parties, the above suit in O.S.No.3672 of 2006 has been decreed vide Judgement and Decree dtd. 25/11/2010, by the IV Assistant City Civil Judge. The Petitioners' ownership rights over the said property of their grandfather was recorded in the Patta and revenue records as early as 29/9/1995.

(3.) It is further contended that the Petitioners were subsequently impleaded as Respondents in E.P.No.1462 of 2016 in O.S. No. 3672 of 2006. The proceedings were challenged before this Court in C.R.P. No.2447/2023, wherein the this Court directed the Petitioners to work out their remedy before the Executing Court, under Sec. 47 CPC. At the time the said C.R.P.No.2447 of 2023 was disposed, E.A.No. 1254/2017 filed by the 2ndRespondent under Sec. 47 CPC., was pending. However the Petitioners were not parties to the said E.A.No. 1254/2017 and as such, they were not heard. The Petitioners not being parties to the suit in O.S.No.3672/2006 are not eligible to the remedy under under Sec. 47 CPC. Subsequently, the Execution Court passed the Docket Order, dtd. 2/3/2024 in E.P.No.1462 of 2016 in O.S. No. 3672/2006 whereby, the Petitioners, who were not parties to the suit in O.S.No.3672 of 2006 were also made liable to comply with the execution of the decree.