KANNIAMMAL Vs. S. ANJALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.213 of 2003 before the District Munsif Court, Gudiattam, Vellore District, are the petitioners. The revision petitioners challenge the order passed in E.A.No.9 of 2019 in E.P.No.83 of 2017. The said EA was filed by the revision petitioners under Sec. 47 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC to declare the decree for delivery of possession as inexecutable. The executing Court, on enquiry, dismissed the said application, as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr.S.Anil Sandeep, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

(3.) Mr.S.Anil Sandeep, learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that an extent of 22 cents, which is claimed by the decree holder in the execution petition is available only on paper in the revenue records and the same is not physically available on earth and consequently, in such circumstances, the decree itself is inexecutable. He would also rely on the report of the Advocate Commissioner in this regard, which according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, vindicates their stand that land was not available on earth. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.