ST MARKS EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. S SAMPATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern all the above 35 civil revision petitions which come for admission before this Court.

(2.) THIS Court is of the considered opinion that not even a notice is necessary to the opposite party namely the respondents herein, since these revisions do not require admission in the hands of this Court, but require a straightaway dismissal.

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, it is true that there were decrees originally passed for declaration and subsequently, the relief of possession was also granted in the appeals preferred by the plaintiff; that the judgment debtor preferred SLPs before the Supreme Court against the judgments passed in the appeals, and they were dismissed; that thereafter, execution petitions were filed; that it is true that applications under Sec. 47 of CPC were taken out; that the same were also dismissed; that against the said order, the judgment debtor preferred revision petitions before this Court, which also ended in dismissal; that thereafter, a SLP was filed before the Supreme Court; that the judgment debtor withdrew the SLP with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Executing Court; that accordingly, liberty was granted; that under the circumstances, the instant applications were brought forth for the purpose of production of certain original documents, which were exhibits filed in O. S. No. 226/88, from the Sub court, Poonamallee; that originally, the relief of declaration alone was granted; but, there was refusal of the relief of recovery of possession; and that the other applications were filed for production of certain documents from the Town Surveyor, District Collector, the Tahsildar, and also the Assistant director of Land Survey, as found in the respective applications pertaining to survey No. 242/22 of 158, Pallavaram, which is shown as E. P. Schedule, and other survey Numbers as found in the respective applications, since there was no evidence on record in the EPs for locating the specific extent of 4899 square feet forming part of the larger extent of the property in the said Survey no. 242/22 and other adjoining Survey Fields as undivided property in the possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner herein which is running a recognised Matriculation Higher Secondary School from 1984.