ST MARK S EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. S SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment-debtor in the E. P. No. 111/2005 in O. S. No. 226/1988, on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Alandur, is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. The respondent herein filed O. S. No. 226/1988 before the Sub-Court, Poonamallee for a declaration that the 'b' schedule property mentioned in the schedule is his absolute property and for directing the 1st defendant/revision Petitioner to put the decree holder/respondent in vacant possession of the suit property. By judgment and decree dated 31. 10. 1995, the trial court decreed the suit for title and dismissed the same for possession. The respondent/plaintiff herein alone filed an appeal in A. S. No. 386/1996 before this Court and a Division Bench of this court by its elaborate judgment dated 29. 3. 2005 allowed the appeal and granted the decree for possession also. Against the judgment and decree dated 29. 3. 2005, the Revision Petitioner filed Special Leave Petition. But the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13. 5. 2005. The respondent/decree holder filed E. P. No. 111/2005 to execute the decree and after receiving the notice in the execution proceedings, the Revision Petitioner filed an Execution Application under Sec. 47 and with a prayer to declare that the decree dated 31. 10. 1995 is null and void and not executable against him. The execution court by order dated 14. 3. 2006 in unnumbered SR No. 11426/2005 in E. P. No. 111/2005 rejected the same and challenging the order dated 14. 3. 2006, the above Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner herein.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the execution court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the issue in accordance with Sec. 47 of C. P. C. , read with Rule 143 of the Civil Rules of Practice. He further submitted that the Revision Petitioner had no occasion to bring it to the notice of the court during the hearing of the suit and appeal about the fraud played by the decree holder against the courts and other authorities which came to light when he took steps to obey and to give effect to the decree in the suit.