E JAYARAMAN Vs. L PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge is made to a order of dismissal made by the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai made in E.A.No.1879 of 2007, seeking a specific direction to the bailiff to measure 42 feet from East to West starting from Razak Garden street, strictly in accordance with the schedule of property while executing the warrant in the E.P. filed by the respondents herein pursuant to a decree in a suit for recovery of possession in O.S.No.6876 of 1988.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) CONTRARY to the above, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that these contentions have already been negatived. The revision petitioners/defendants have already filed an another suit in O.S.No.8013 of 1987 for declaration of the property, which they call as if it is situated on the extreme West and that relief was denied. They took it on appeal and the appeal was taken along with A.S.No.802 of 1991, which was preferred by the revision petitioners from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.6876 of 1988 filed by the respondents, wherein the relief of recovery of possession in respect of the suit property was granted. It is pertinent to point out that there was a specific issue whether the properties in both the suits were one and the same. On trial, the lower court has found that both the properties were same. When this point was raised before the Division Bench of this court, the Honourable Division Bench of this court observed that the identity of the property could not be canvassed at this stage and therefore, different findings cannot be recorded and hence, denied the case of the appellants. Under these circumstances, what all are put forth before the lower court was thoroughly erroneous and the application must be dismissed.