PERIASWAMY Vs. ANCHALAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is preferred by a third party against the order of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam, who declined to grant redelivery of possession taken from the third party, in execution of a decree to which such third party was not a party. When the revision petition is taken up for hearing, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision under Order XXI Rule 103 C.P.C.

(2.) ORDER XXI Rule 103 CPC makes it clear that any order made under Rule 98 or Rule 100 shall have the same force and subject to the conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. Learned counsel also brings to my notice a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in M. Chockalingam and others v. Veerabadra Chettiar and others, 1984 (I) MLJ 17 , wherein it has been held that such an order has to be conclusive with regard to the rights of the parties and has the force of a decree and is subject to an appeal as if it were a decree. Another decision reported in P. Pathrakali Nadachi v. V. Subbiah Nadar and others, 1981 (1) MLJ 452 is also brought to my notice wherein it has been held that "if the order passed under order 21 Rule 93 Civil Procedure Code is treated as a decree as provided under ORDER 21 Rule 103 Civil Procedure Code only an appeal will lie". Consequently, it is contended that the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. I agree. It is clear that revision petition is not maintainable and only an appeal would lie to the Sub-Court, Virudhachalam against the above order.

(3.) REGISTRY is directed to despatch all the papers including the main C.R.P. to the Sub-Court, Virudhachalam so that the Sub-Court can take the same on file, number it as an appeal and follow the above directions of this Court.