KAYALVIZHI Vs. S PARTHASARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the Fair and Decreetal Order, dated 20.01.2007 made in E.A.No.322 of 2006 in E.P.No.67 of 2004 in O.S.No.664 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppur

(2.) THE first respondent/decree-holder filed the Execution Petition, seeking the relief under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Execution Application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of obstruction made by the revision petitioner, the second respondent therein and to put the first respondent in the possession of the property. It is an admitted fact that no counter was filed by the petitioner herein and the other respondent/judgment-debtor and there was no representation for the said respondents before the Executing Court. Hence, the petitioner herein and the other respondent were set exparte and the petition filed by the first respondent/decree-holder herein was allowed by order, dated 20.01.2007 passed by the court below. Aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred by the petitioner herein.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the suit in O.S.No.664 of 1999 had been filed for specific performance by the first respondent/decree holder against the second respondent herein. After duly contested, the suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent on 27.11.2001. Pursuant to the decree, the first respondent filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.12 of 2003 and also obtained sale deed executed, as per the order of the Executing Court. Subsequently, as the second respondent/judgment-debtor did not hand over the possession of the suit property, the first respondent/decree-holder filed E.P.No.67 of 2004, wherein delivery was ordered, directing the second respondent to hand over the possession of the property. However, the revision petitioner filed a petition as an obstructor/third party. Hence, the Execution Application in E.A.No.322 of 2006 was filed by the first respondent/decree-holder against the judgment-debtor and his wife, the revision petitioner herein. As there was no representation for the judgment-debtor and his wife, the respondents therein, the said application was allowed by the Court below. Aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred.