ZAIMUNNISA Vs. M. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the Judgment of the First Appellate Court in C.M.A. No. 82 of 2006 setting aside the Decretal Order passed in L.A. No. 2695 of 1987 in O.S. No. 9570 of 1986, the present Revision has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to file this Revision Petition is as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would vehemently contend that though the Suit was filed on 8/12/1986, the Tenant filed Application under Sec. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act, on 23/1/1987 wherein the Plaintiff has admitted for selling the land to the Revision Petitioner in his Counter. Accordingly, Advocate Commissioner was appointed on 18/1/1988 to enquire into the exact land in occupation of the Revision Petitioner and to determine the land value. Subsequently, a Memo was filed in the month of December 1989 stating that the Plaintiff had died. Therefore, the Suit was dismissed as abated as against the 1st Plaintiff. However, Advocate Commissioner has filed a Report in L.A. No. 2695 of 1987 fixing the Market Value and 624 sq.ft. is in occupation of the Tenant. Despite the matter has been adjourned for filing objection to the Commissioner Report, till 7/8/1990 no objection was filed. Accordingly on 7/8/1990, the Trial Court has fixed the Market Value as Rs.9,204.00 for an extent of 624 sq.ft. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner again filed an Application against the Respondent to execute Sale Deed. In the above Application, the original Plaintiffs Legal Representatives were brought on record. Challenging the same, C.R.P. No. 1063 of 2002 was filed. This Court by Order, dtd. 12/8/2003 dismissed the C.R.P. by holding that since L.Rs. have brought on record in subsequent proceedings, there is no illegality in Decree. Thereafter, Sec. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants' Protection Act Application once again taken for disposal and the Respondent set ex parte on 6/8/1999. The Trial Court directed the Revision Petitioner to deposit the sum within one month and finally on 4/3/2002 payment was recorded. Thereafter, on 5/3/2002 Order passed in L.A. directing the Respondent to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, it is the contention of the learned Counsel that on 1/2/2002, Order is only a consequential Order to earlier Order passed fixing Market Value on 7/8/1990. The above Order has not been challenged by the Respondent. Therefore, the consequential Order cannot be challenged.