Judgment : 1. The petitioner who is a judgment-debtor who lost possession while executing the decree obtained by the third respondent is before this Court. 2. The petitioner was a tenant under the third respondent occupying the property at Door No.9/336-1, State Bank Colony, Anandankoil, Keelpakkam Village, Karur Taluk and District. The third respondent who is a landlord filed a suit in O.S.No.172 of 2009 on the file of the Additional sub-Court, Karur, seeking recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed as ex-parte on 25.06.2012. Based on that E.P.No.235 of 2012 to execute the ex-parte decree was filed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a set aside petition and the same was dismissed on 04.03.2014. On the same day, the Executing Court ordered delivery of possession. 3. The petitioner contends that he was living in Dharapuram, as the Lakshmi Vilas Bank was lodged a complaint against the petitioner and the case was registered against him with regard to the financial transactions. Therefore, the petitioner was not present when the Court Ameen came for taking possession. He further submits that he kept the house under lock and key, the Court Ameen and he along with the third respondent and henchmen illegally broke open the house and looted the properties worth about Rs.11.00 Lakhs. In this regard the petitioner gave a complaint against the third respondent and no action has been taken against the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. S. Siva Thilakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even two motor-cycles which were parked in the property and they were taken away. In this regard, he produced the copies of the R.C book and the list of articles were produced. 5. Though the petitioner already gave a complaint before the District Judge, since the third respondent is not an officer, the third respondent has to be independently proceed with. Hence, the present complaint and seeks a direction. 6. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 7. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner is a tenant under the third respondent. A suit for recovery was also filed as early as in the year 2009, in O.S.No.172 of 2009 and the same was decreed on 25.06.2012, to execute the said decree in E.P.No.235 of 2015 was filed. 7. A perusal of the records would show that the petitioner is a tenant under the third respondent. A suit for recovery was also filed as early as in the year 2009, in O.S.No.172 of 2009 and the same was decreed on 25.06.2012, to execute the said decree in E.P.No.235 of 2015 was filed. A set aside petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed on 04.03.2014; possession was also ordered on that day. When a suit was decreed and E.P was ordered, the proper course for the petitioner is to remain in the petitioner's premises. When the order of execution is about to be executed at any time against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot abandon the property and he contended that he is residing at Dharapuram. Probably, the petitioner after knowing of the proceedings deliberately left the property to make it appear as if the third respondent looted the properties. It is usual cry of any judgment-debtor after loosing the battle. If any discrepancy or lacuna is there with regard to the execution, the proper course is to move the same Court only not the police station. Hence, the direction sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.