HUSSAIN AYSA NACHIAL AND ORS. Vs. VEMBU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in O.P. No. 22 of 1972 on the file of the Revenue Court, Karaikkal, are the revision petitioners. The respondent therein, is the respondent herein. In execution of an order of eviction obtained in O.P. No. 22 of 1972, the, petitioners sought for delivery of possession of the property in question. Admittedly, there was an obstruction by one Somu Piliai, son of Vuithilingam Pillai and this obstruction was notified to the Court below. Instead of taking proceedings for removal of obstruction, the petitioners herein wanted to prosecute the execution petition. The respondent raised a contention and it has been countenanced by the Court below that when no proceedings have been taken for removal of obstruction, the execution petition is incompetent and it cannot be prosecuted. This contention of the respondent as stated above has been accepted by the Court below and the execution petition has been dismissed. As against the order of the Court below the petitioners have filed the present revision.

(2.) TWO questions would arise for consideration in the present revision : (1) whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked in the contingency faced in the present case; and (2) even if the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked for the purpose of removal of obstruction caused to the execution, can the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, be invoked and applied so as to effectuate the orders of eviction passed by the Revenue Court, under the provisions of the Pondicherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Ace (IX of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) SHRI R. Gopalakrishnan, learned Counsel for the respondent, submits that the absence of reference to the specific rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder, need not form a bar for invoking the principles under the Code of Civil Procedure, to effectuate the orders passed by the Revenue Court and if such a procedure is not adopted, execution of the orders of the Revenue Court will become illusory and there may be successful obstruction which cannot be removed in the physical sense; and hence, construing the rules framed under the Act, it is possible to say that there should be a formal application for removal of obstruction without which the execution petition cannot be prosecuted.