PONNAPPAN Vs. GOPAL PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision petitions have been filed under Sec.115 of C.P.C., against the orders dated 26.7.2004 and 30.1.2004 and made in E.P.No.166/2002 in O.S.No.453/1994 and in E.A.No.660/2003 in E.P.No.166/2002 in O.S.No.453/1994 respectively, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.453/1994 is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that when the construction was made pendente lite, the executing court ought to have removed the same instead of dismissing the execution petition itself as inexecutable. He further contended that the execution court should not allow technicalities to come in the way of the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. THE learned counsel has relied on the decision of this court reported in 2006(1) CTC 526 (Athisayaraj, D.V. v. Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association) and 2007(1) CTC 217 (Madaswamy v. Govindaraj) in support of his submissions.