RAMAMURTHY Vs. VATSALA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMAMURTHY and Thiruselvam, petitioners herein, have filed this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order passed in E. A. No. 177 of 2003 in E. P. No. 106 of 2000 in O. S. No. 259 of 1997, dismissing the application filed by them under Section 47 of C. P. C. , to declare the decree passed in O. S. No. 259 of 1997, which was filed by the respondent for damages, as non-est.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows: vatsla Ammal, respondent herein, filed O. S. No. 259 of 1997 against the petitioners. The said suit was for damages, claiming a compensation of Rs. 30,000/ -. Before the said suit was filed, another suit O. S. No. 79 of 1994 for permanent injunction was filed, and when the interim injunction passed therein was disobeyed by the petitioners, by causing damage to the fence and the channel, the said suit O. S. No. 259 of 1997 was filed for damages. Both the suits, namely, O. S. Nos. 79 of 1994 and 259 of 1997 were decreed as against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, petitioners, who were defendants in the suits, filed A. S. Nos. 122 of 1999 and 62 of 2001, which were re-numbered as A. S. Nos. 8 of 2002 and 101 of 2002 respectively. Ultimately, A. S. No. 8 of 2002, relating to O. S. No. 79 of 1994, was allowed and A. S. No. 101 of 2002, relating to O. S. No. 259 of 1997, was dismissed. By virtue of the dismissal of A. S. No. 101 of 2002, respondent/plaintiff filed E. P. No. 106 of 2000, to recover the sum towards damages. After nearly three years, petitioners/defendants filed E. A. No. 177 of 2003 under Section 47 of C. P. C. , to declare the decree in O. S. No. 259 of 1997 as infructuous, non-est and non-executable, on the ground that already O. S. No. 259 of 1997 had become extinguished, in view of the decree passed by the appellate Court in A. S. No. 8 of 2002, relating to O. S. No. 79 of 1994. The executing Court, accepting the plea of the plaintiff/respondent Vatsala Ammal that the decree passed in O. S. No. 79 of 1994 had no bearing to the decree passed in O. S. No. 259 of 1997, dismissed the application E. A. No. 177 of 2003, filed by the defendants, namely, the petitioners herein. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of the defendants.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also gone through the records.