SHANTHI Vs. T D VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the Order of dismissal of Section 47 Petition in E.A.No.3570/2006 in E.P.No.249/2006 in O.S.No.649/1977. 8th Defendant in O.S.No.649/1977 is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) RELEVANT facts for disposal of this Revision Petition are as follows:- 2.1. Plaintiffs/Subramaniam Mudaliar and Rajavelu Mudaliar have filed the suit O.S.No.649/1977 against the Petitioner who is the 8th Defendant and seven others, for delivery of possession of the premises bearing D.No.225, Sengunthar Street, Velacheri, Saidapet Taluk and also for arrears of rent and other reliefs. The said suit was decreed on 14.08.2001. Against the said Judgment and Decree, the Defendants preferred Appeal in A.S.No.14/1982 before the District Court, Chengalpat and the said appeal was dismissed on 22.11.1982. Second Appeal preferred in S.A.No.1087/1983 was also dismissed by the High Court on 30.12.2003. 2.2. At the time of filing the suit, the suit property was within the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. Subsequently, the suit property came within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai. On application filed by the Decree-Holders in E.A.No.240/2004, the Decree in O.S.No.649/1977 was transmitted to City Civil Court, Chennai by the Order dated 07.09.2004. E.P.No.249/ 2006 was filed for execution of the Decree. 2.3. In the said E.P., the Petitioner/D-8 filed E.A.No.3570/2006 under Section 47 CPC challenging the jurisdiction of the Court, disputing the identity of suit property and raising the plea of limitation. In the said application, son of the Petitioner viz., Hariharan was examined as PW-1 and the Power of Attorney of the Legal Representatives of Decree-Holders was examined as RW-1. Holding that the execution Petition is well within the period of limitation and negativing the contention raised regarding the identity of the suit property, the Execution Court held that there was no discrepancy in the identity of the property and dismissed the application, which is challenged in this Revision Petition.

(3.) THE objection regarding the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court hardly merits acceptance. At the time when suit O.S.No.649/1977 was filed, the suit property in Velachery was within the jurisdiction of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. With the extension of limits of Chennai Corporation, the property in Velachery limits fell within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Chennai. For the execution of the Decree by competent Court, on application made by the Decree-Holders in E.A.NO.240/2004, Decree was transmitted to the City Civil Court, Chennai. Section 42 CPC expressly gives the Court executing the Decree sent to it; the same powers in executing such Decree, as if it had been passed by itself. THE expression appearing in "executing such Decree" means, "powers exercised in actually enforcing the Decree".