K.MANIKANDAN Vs. AMIRTHAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A third party to the proceedings filed an Application under Sec. 47 of CPC to declare that the Execution Petition is not maintainable and the decree cannot be executed. The said Application was dismissed by the Trial Court, as against which the present Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.M.S.Sriram Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed, would contend that the father of the revision petitioner was a party to the suit and initially, a decree was passed as against which, the defendants including the father of the petitioner preferred an Appeal. The First Appeal preferred by the defendants, including the father of the revision petitioner, was allowed by the Additional District Court, Cuddalore. As against the same, the respondents moved this Court by way of Second Appeal in S.A. No.226 of 2004. In the Second Appeal, the petitioner's father was arrayed as the second respondent. However, the petitioner's father was given up by the respondents and thereafter, the Second Appeal was allowed and in order to execute the decree in their favour, the respondents filed an Execution Petition. In the said Execution Petition, the revision petitioner contending that he is in possession of the decreetal property filed an Application under Sec. 47 of CPC. It is the case of the revision petitioner that his father left the family without any information and his whereabouts are not known even today and it is only the petitioner and his family, who continue to reside in the decreetal property.