S PAUL PANDI Vs. MARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three civil revision petitioners have been preferred by the revision petitioner/appellant/ petitioner as against the orders dated 05.11.2008 passed in C.M.A.Nos.32 of 2008, 33 of 2008 and 34 of 2008 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, confirming the orders dated 01.07.2008 passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, in rejecting the unnumbered E.As., filed by the revision petitioner under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE learned I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, while rejecting the unnumbered E.As., vide orders dated 01.07.2008, has inter alia observed that the petitioner in respect of the petition mentioned property has filed the suit praying for the relief of declaration and therefore, the present E.As., are not maintainable and moreover, the Executing Court has to act in pursuance of the orders passed in the Rent Control Petitions and it cannot go beyond the said orders and inasmuch as no stay order has been passed in the appeal as against the orders passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.102 of 2002, 98 of 2002 and 100 of 2002, the present unnumbered E.As., are not maintainable and resultantly, rejected the same.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, as against the revision petitioner's father/tenant, the orders have been passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.102 of 2002, 98 of 2002 and 100 of 2002, on 06.11.2003 and the revision petitioner claims that he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of a Will dated 05.09.2001 and that the revision petitioner is one of the sons of the second respondent and unless the Executing Court numbers the said three E.As., the revision petitioner cannot put forward his case thoroughly and comprehensively in the manner known to law and to avoid multiplicity of suits, the claim petitions filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure are maintainable in the eye of law and therefore, the civil revision petitions may be allowed by this Court.