MANICKAM Vs. RAHMATH BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/respondents/judgment debtors have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 28.08.2003 passed in E.A.No,246 of 2003 in E.P.No,87 of 2003 in O.S. No,401 of 1981 by the Learned District Munsif Tiruvarur.

(2.) THE trial Court, while passing orders in E.A.No,246 of 2003 in E.P.No,87 of 2003 dated 28.08.2003, has interalia opined that the application filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtors/petitioners praying for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property mentioned in the decree along with a surveyor in order to measure and fix the boundary and to identify the portion to be demolished is not to be allowed and resultantly, dismissed the said application without costs.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the Second Respondent and adopted by Respondent Nos.3 to 6 it is among other things mentioned that during the pendency of the suit the suit property described in the Execution Petition 87 of 2003 dated 28.08.2003 was measured two times and the matter was taken to the High Court and the trial Court's decree for mandatory injunction has been confirmed and that the petitioners are bound to remove the encroachments and the since they have not complied with the decree an Execution Petition has been filed by the respondents and in short, the revision petitioners cannot undo what has already been done and there is nothing that an Advocate Commissioner or a Surveyor can do at this stage and therefore, prays for the dismissal of the application with costs.