R SRINIVASAL NAIDU Vs. V CHOCKALINGAM CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 03. 09. 2009 in E. P. No. 40 of 2009 in O. S. No. 476 of 1996 passed by the Learned District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

(2.) THE Executing Court while passing orders in E. P. No. 40 of 2009 on 03. 09. 2009 has inter alia observed that "for peaceful and proper segregation he appoints Mr. K. Rajini, Advocate as Commissioner by suo motu and has directed him to inspect the suit property with the help of town surveyor after due notice to either sides and to devide and allot 43 cents to the respondent etc. , and allot 22 cents to the respondent/defendant/petitioner and to mark the boundary lines (2-1) in the land and file a detail report by 06. 10. 2009 etc. "

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent/plaintiff urges that the Executing Court has committed an error in directing the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to divide it into three parts and even prior to the judgment in Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007, the revision petitioner continued to be in possession and enjoyment of only 43 cents out of 65 cents and therefore there is no need for division of property and that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree made in Second Appeal No. 141 of 2007 and in short the impugned order of the Learned Judge is vitiated by material irregularity and illegality, and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.