PETCHIAMMAL Vs. TAHSILDHAR, TAHSILDHAR OFFICE, SANKARANKOIL, THIRUNEVELI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Petition is directed against the order passed in CRP(NPD) (MD) No. 1185 of 2007 dated 11.09.2017.

(2.) Complaining that the respondents herein had violated the order dated 31.07.2001 passed in O.S.No.419 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankaran Koil, the Review Petitioner preferred Execution proceedings against them under Order XXI Rule 32 clause 1 of Civil Procedure Code and the Executing Court finding acceptance to the case of the review petitioner, ordered further proceedings against the respondents herein. Impugning the same, the C.R.P (NPD) (MD) No.1185 of 2007 has been preferred by the respondents. This Court, after considering the materials placed on record, finding that the respondents are not shown to have indulged in any act in violation of the decree passed in the suit dated 31.07.2001 and further, finding that the lower Court has not properly appreciated the oral evidence adduced in the matter by the respective parties and accordingly, holding that the respondents herein had not initiated any patta proceedings as such in disobedience to the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 passed in the suit, set aside the fair and decretal order passed in the execution proceedings against the respondents in the Civil Revision Petition by allowing the Civil Revision Petition in favour of the respondents. Seeking review of the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has come to be laid.

(3.) The only ground that has been projected by the petitioner in the review petition is that during the pendency of O.S.No.419 of 1997, the petitioner had been granted the order of status quo by the Court concerned and inasmuch as the said order of status quo continued till the disposal of the suit, according to him, inasmuch as the respondents had resorted to patta proceedings pending the suit in O.S.No.419 of 1997 and when the materials are projected to substantiate the same and when the petitioner had failed to project the said fact at the time of submission in the Civil Revision Petition when the same was taken into consideration, according to him, the interim order passed in the suit proceedings would enure in favour of the petitioner and therefore, inasmuch as the respondents had initiated or resorted to patta proceedings in violation of the interim order, the order impugned in the review petition is required to be reconsidered.