Judgment :- This order shall govern all the above 35 civil revision petitions which come for admission before this Court. 2. This Court is of the considered opinion that not even a notice is necessary to the opposite party namely the respondents herein, since these revisions do not require admission in the hands of this Court, but require a straightaway dismissal. 3. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. All these revisions have challenged the different orders made in the execution applications 35 in number, as referred to above, which were filed by the judgment debtor namely the petitioner herein, calling for the original records from the Sub Court, Poonamallee, in respect of O.S.No.226/88 and issuing subpoena to the Town Surveyor, the Tahsildar, and the Collector and also to different authorities for production of certain documents. After giving an opportunity to the opposite party namely the decree holders, the respondents herein, the learned District Munsif, Alandur, dismissed all the applications. Hence, these revisions have arisen before this Court. 5. After giving an opportunity to the opposite party namely the decree holders, the respondents herein, the learned District Munsif, Alandur, dismissed all the applications. Hence, these revisions have arisen before this Court. 5. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, it is true that there were decrees originally passed for declaration and subsequently, the relief of possession was also granted in the appeals preferred by the plaintiff; that the judgment debtor preferred SLPs before the Supreme Court against the judgments passed in the appeals, and they were dismissed; that thereafter, execution petitions were filed; that it is true that applications under Sec.47 of CPC were taken out; that the same were also dismissed; that against the said order, the judgment debtor preferred revision petitions before this Court, which also ended in dismissal; that thereafter, a SLP was filed before the Supreme Court; that the judgment debtor withdrew the SLP with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Executing Court; that accordingly, liberty was granted; that under the circumstances, the instant applications were brought forth for the purpose of production of certain original documents, which were exhibits filed in O.S.No.226/88, from the Sub Court, Poonamallee; that originally, the relief of declaration alone was granted; but, there was refusal of the relief of recovery of possession; and that the other applications were filed for production of certain documents from the Town Surveyor, District Collector, the Tahsildar, and also the Assistant Director of Land Survey, as found in the respective applications pertaining to Survey No.242/22 of 158, Pallavaram, which is shown as E.P. Schedule, and other Survey Numbers as found in the respective applications, since there was no evidence on record in the EPs for locating the specific extent of 4899 square feet forming part of the larger extent of the property in the said Survey No.242/22 and other adjoining Survey Fields as undivided property in the possession and enjoyment of the revision petitioner herein which is running a recognised Matriculation Higher Secondary School from 1984. .6. .6. The learned Counsel would further add that the Executing Court has not rendered any finding in all the execution applications to the effect that the Executing Court can exercise jurisdiction to effect the proper delivery of possession of the vacant sites in question, in the absence of looking into the suit records and the documents sought for in the above applications under the circumstances, and that too, without any obstructions as legally provided under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in the subsequent stages of execution proceedings; but, the Executing Court has observed that the present applications relate to the steps leading to prove the title of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in the above suits, whereas no such contention was raised or pleaded in any of the execution applications; that further, in order to avoid the delay by filing obstruction applications after delivery, in view of the running of the School, these documents were necessary; that it was also brought to the notice of the Court at the time of the execution petitions that only then, the identity of the property could be fixed for the purpose of proper delivery; but, the lower Court has failed to consider the same; that even before the Supreme Court, the SLP preferred, was actually withdrawn by getting a liberty of the Supreme Court to initiate appropriate proceedings; that the said liberty has also been granted; but, the lower Court has miserably failed to consider any one of the factual or legal position, but has dismissed the applications, and under the circumstances, the revisions have got to be admitted and an enquiry be conducted over the same. 7. This Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered opinion that all the revisions require an order of dismissal in the hands of this Court for more reasons than one. .8. From the submissions made and the materials available, it could be seen that there was originally a suit in O.S.No.226/1988 which was filed for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession by the plaintiff therein; that subsequently, five declaration suits and six injunction suits were also filed; that apart from that, two other suits for injunction were also filed by the petitioner herein; and that all the suits were actually taken on file. Apart from that, the petitioner-trust filed two suits for injunction. Apart from that, the petitioner-trust filed two suits for injunction. Thus, 13 suits were taken up for trial. After the trial was over, decrees only in respect of declaration were granted and the relief of possession was denied by a judgment dated 310. 1995, and the compensation in respect of the relief of possession, was granted. At that time, the appeals were also preferred from the judgment in respect of the denial of recovery of possession. Thereafter, the appeal was taken up for consideration by this Court in A.S.No.386/96 against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.226/88, along with other appeals. This Court allowed the appeals and granted a decree for possession also in favour of the original decree holders, and thereafter, Special Leave Petitions were also taken by the judgment debtor before the Apex Court, which ended in dismissal. Following the same, E.P.No.111/2005 and other Execution Petitions were laid to execute the decrees. At that time, applications under Sec.47 of the CPC were filed to declare that the decrees originally passed, are null and void and are unenforceable and inexecutable. Those applications were dismissed at the numbering stage itself. Thereafter, revision petitions were taken in this Court, and they also ended in dismissal, wherein this Court has found that the judgment debtor was only a trespasser who was not competent to question the executability of the decree. Thereafter, they took it on SLP. At that juncture, when the SLP was taken up for consideration, an endorsement was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that they are withdrawing the SLP with the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Executing Court. The liberty was given, and the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. When the EPs were further to be proceeded with, the instant applications were filed seeking the production of certain original documents which were marked before the original Court namely the Sub Court, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.226/88, and also from all the different authorities referred to above for the production of documents. .9. When the EPs were further to be proceeded with, the instant applications were filed seeking the production of certain original documents which were marked before the original Court namely the Sub Court, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.226/88, and also from all the different authorities referred to above for the production of documents. .9. As could be seen from the submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, they are continuing to be in possession of the property with larger extent, and it is true that the suits were decreed, but only to a lesser extent, and in order to have the proper execution of the decrees in question, identity of the property has got to be fixed, and for that purpose, the documents are to be produced. Now, at this juncture, this contention cannot be countenanced even for a moment. Admittedly, there was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in O.S.No.226/88, and the suit was decreed in respect of declaration. Originally, when the suit was dismissed by the trial Court in respect of the relief of recovery of possession, the aggrieved plaintiff took it on appeal, and in that appeal, a decree was granted, and it was also decided that the plaintiff was entitled for possession also. Now, it would be quite clear that the decree originally granted declaring the rights of the parties in respect of the specific property and subsequently made for recovery of possession also has got its force. When the EPs were laid, the petitioner took the applications under Sec.47 of C.P.C. even questioning the executability of the decrees. That applications even at the numbering stage was dismissed. When they came before the High Court by way of revisions, the High Court has termed the revision petitioner/defendant as a trespasser who could not question the executability of the decrees. When the EPs were to be further proceeded with, they took it on SLP. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that liberty has been granted by the Supreme Court to initiate appropriate proceedings. It is true that liberty has been granted at the time of the disposal of the SLP. When the EPs were to be further proceeded with, they took it on SLP. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that liberty has been granted by the Supreme Court to initiate appropriate proceedings. It is true that liberty has been granted at the time of the disposal of the SLP. But, it did not mean that again they could be allowed to question the enforceability of the decrees or the extent of the property in respect of which the decrees originally for declaration and subsequently for possession have been granted, and it has become final also. Now, at this juncture, the appropriate proceedings to be initiated would not mean certainly to make such applications even going against the original state of affairs, which prevailed at the time of the filing of the suit. Apart from that, the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, would not mean filing of applications like this. Now, once the petitioner has been termed as a trespasser, no question of allowing him to initiate appropriate proceedings even challenging the decrees or invoking any competency to question the validity or questioning the declaratory relief which was granted, or the recovery of possession in question. Further, all the applications, in the opinion of this Court, have been made only for the purpose of delaying tactics. 10. As far as the execution of the decrees is concerned, no question of identity to be fixed would arise for the simple reason that originally, declaration was granted, and subsequently, possession has also been decreed, and it has become final also. What is available in the decrees is only the declaratory relief and possession. The decree holders were entitled to get possession. Getting all these documents now is nothing but either to delay or to make a contention in the original proceedings that has already culminated in the final decree, and it has also attained finality. Under the circumstances, the lower Court has passed reasoned orders dismissing the applications. This Court is of the view that no interference is required in the same. 11. In the result, all these civil revisions petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.