LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-651

PALANIAMMAL Vs. SUKUMAR

Decided On February 22, 2018
PALANIAMMAL Appellant
V/S
SUKUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 23.03.20215 made in I.A.Nos.129 and 130 of 2013 in O.S.No.533 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

(2.) The issues and the parties involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore, disposed of by this common order.

(3.) The first petitioner is one of the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants 2 to 8 in O.S.No.533 of 1988 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode. The first petitioner along with her sister, Lakshmi filed the said suit against the respondents for declaration and possession. The said suit was decreed on 11.11.1993, only with regard to declaration and relief of possession was rejected. The petitioners filed A.S.No.814 of 1995 against dismissal of relief of possession before this Court and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2009. This Court granted both the reliefs of declaration and injunction. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents filed S.L.P (Civil) No.13327 of 2011 and when the same was taken on file, an affidavit of undertaking dated May 2011, agreeing to vacate the premises on or before 14.10.2011 and surrender the vacant possession was filed. The said S.L.P was dismissed. The respondents did not surrender the vacant possession as agreed upon. The petitioners filed E.P.R.No.14 of 2010 for possession and delivery was ordered. Delivery warrant was issued on 20.10.2011 when the Court Amin went along with Village Administrative Officer. It was found that the Re-Survey number was wrongly mentioned as 329 instead of 330. The petitioners have filed two applications I.A.Nos.129 and 130 of 2012 to correct the survey number in schedule to the plaint and decree in O.S.No.533 of 1988. According to the petitioners, the Resurvey number was wrongly given due to clerical mistake. Unless the mistake is corrected, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and will not be in a position to realise the fruits of decree.