REVATHY Vs. VARNAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.90 of 2018, in and by which, the Executing Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder under Sec. 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) I have heard Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice on the respondents and their names also printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on the side of the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that pursuant to decree in O.S.No.27 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, delivery was effected on 27/1/2017 and thereafter on 31/1/2017, recording the fact that delivery had been taken, the EP was also closed. Thereafter on 10/3/2017, the judgment debtor trespassed into the same property and soon thereafter on 4/7/2017, he died. In order to recover possession from the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor, the petitioner took out an application in E.A.No.90 of 2018 under Sec. 50 of CPC to recognize the respondents 2 to 7, as legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent. The Executing Court has found that the decree having been already satisfied and delivery of property was also recorded and the EP was closed, the petitioner could not maintain the application under Sec. 50 of CPC.