S.SARATH KAKAMANU Vs. VEERAPPAN ARUNACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.9974 of 1992 / the Judgment -Debtor in E.P.No.1191 of 2013 / the petitioner in E.A.No.4236 of 2015 (Section 47 Application) is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the Judgment -Debtor that even in the Settlement deed executed by Jayalakshmi Ammal in favour of her children, the property conveyed is stated as Door Nos.11 -12 and the alleged private road is being described only as a common passage and no portion of the common passage has been specifically conveyed. In other words, the issue raised is that the petitioners, who filed the Execution Petition, even though may be the owners of the building, but not the owners of the adjoining private road to Door Nos.11 -12.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that once before the Decree Holders filed an Execution Petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, in which the Revision petitioners had filed the Application in E.A.No.4236 of 2015 (under Section 47 CPC) and the Executing Court passed an order in S.R.No.41092 of 2014, on 05.01.2015, against which, a Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court, in CRP (NPD) No.1871 of 2015 and this Court, by the order, dated 22.07.2015, set -aside the order of the Executing Court, with a direction to number the Execution Application and to decide the Execution Application, on merits, after giving opportunities to both the parties and the Executing Court did not give sufficient opportunity to the Judgment -Debtor to put forth his case and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set -aside.