SULOCHANA Vs. K SAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners herein being legal representatives of one Sangameswaran, Decree holder in O. S. No. 62 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudalur, have filed E. P. No. 43 of 1995 contending that the respondent/judgment debtor had violated the decree for permanent injunction and had consequently prayed for assistance of the Court for the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent as provided under Order 21, Rule 32 c. P. C. In the Execution Petition itself the petitioners had contended that the petitioners as legal heirs of the Decree holder - Sargameswaran, are entitled to execute without any separate application, under Order 21, Rule 16 C. P. C. THE execution Petition was however resisted by the respondent on the ground that he was not in occupation of the suit property and that the Execution Petition as filed without complying with the requirements under Order 21, Rule 16 C. P. C. was not maintainable. A Commissioner was appointed to submit a report regarding the nature and identity of the property.

(2.) WHILE disposing of the Execution Petition, the. learned District Munsif, did not discuss or render any Specific finding on the issue as to whether there was any violation of the decree entitling the petitioners to obtain an order under Order 21, Rule 32 C. P. C. But rejected the Execution petition only on the ground that it was not maintainable without the compliance of the requirements under Order 21, Rule 16 C. P. C. Hence, the Revision petition.

(3.) K. M. Natarajan, J. in another judgment reported in gnansundaram v. Murugesa Naicker, A. I. R. 1989 Mad. 343, has also held that a transferee of a property under a compromise decree was entitled to maintain an application under Sec. 146 C. P. C. to execute the decree.