BULLARD GRACE MANORAMMA Vs. TELGU BAPTIST CHURCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , who were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased -judgment debtor in an E.P. in a decree for recovery of possession, filed this revision petition questioning the order directing delivery of possession of the decree schedule property to the Decree -Holder (respondent).

(2.) THE admitted facts are, respondent obtained a decree against B. Anandam and others for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, on 26 -8 -1967. Appeal and Second Appeal against that decree were dismissed on 5 -4 -1971 and 28 -8 -1973 respectively. Thereafter, decree -holder filed E.P. No. 40 of 1975 on 29 -8 -1975, seeking delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. When the wife of B. Anandam, the judgment debtor, caused obstruction, decree -holder filed E.A. No.321 of 1979 for removal of the obstruction, which was allowed on 21 -3 -1990. Questioning the said order, B. Anandam, the judgment debtor, filed A.S. No. 66 of 1990, which was dismissed on 12 -4 -1996, whereupon he preferred CMSA No. 21 of 1996 to this Court. During the pendency of the said CMSA, B. Anandam, the judgment debtor, died on 26 -8 -2001. So his wife came on record as his legal representative in CMP No. 22342 of 2001, dated 28 -11 -2001. Thereafter she died on 28 -8 -2002. Hence, revision petitioners came on record as her legal representatives. Thereafter, the said CMSA No. 21 of 1996 was dismissed on 5 -2 -2004. Petition seeking a review of the said order also was dismissed on 19 -6 -2005. In view of the death of the judgment debtor, B. Anandam, respondent decree -holder filed E.A. No. 46 of 2005 in E.P. No. 40 of 1975 to implead the revision petitioners as respondents 5 and 6 in the E.P. as the legal representatives of the deceased -B. Anandam, which was allowed on 16 -3 -2005. After the revision petitioners were so brought on record the executing Court ordered delivery of possession of the decree schedule property to the respondent, by the order impugned.

(3.) RULE 22 of Order XXI CPC reads :