Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 28 (MAD)

Khaja Mohideen v. Ali Hussain

2016-01-04

T.MATHIVANAN

body2016
ORDER : Challenge is made in this revision to the order of return dated 16.12.2015 and made in an unnumbered Execution Application in E.P.No.554 of 1999 in O.S.No.449 of 1994 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The revision petitioner herein is a third party to the original suit in O.S.No.449 of 1994. The first respondent is the plaintiff, whereas the respondents 2 to 4 herein are the defendants in the said suit. 3. The first respondent seems to have filed the above said suit as against the respondents 2 to 4, seeking the relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to let out shop No.400, Big Bazaar, Tiruchirapalli only to him (plaintiff) and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents from leasing out door No.400, Big Bazaar, Tirchy to any other person except the plaintiff. An ex-parte decree was passed on 18.07.1996. In pursuant to the decree, the first respondent had taken out an execution proceedings in E.P.No.554 of 1999. During the pendency of the said execution application, a petition in E.A.No.58 of 2000 was filed by the revision petitioner herein under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a request to record his objection, obstruction and to dispose of the execution petition. That was dismissed on 12.12.2007. 4. What the Executing Court has observed in the above said order is that it has already been decided that the petitioner is not entitled to oppose the decree passed against his landlord and it was also clearly proved that the obstruction made by the petitioner was unjust. The question “invested huge amount in jewelry business” is irrelevant one. As per the order of the Supreme Court, the first respondent is entitled to possession of shop No.400 as tenant and hence mandatory decree passed in favour of the 1st respondent/decree holder is an executable one. After dismissal of the Execution Application in E.A.No.58 of 2000, the revision petitioner had filed a revision before this Court in C.R.P.(MD) No.87 of 2008. That Civil Revision Petition was also dismissed by this Court on 16.04.2015. Under these circumstances, again the petitioner came forward with the above said unnumbered application under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 C.P.C. to conduct enquiry about the petitioner/third party's legal right and possession. That Civil Revision Petition was also dismissed by this Court on 16.04.2015. Under these circumstances, again the petitioner came forward with the above said unnumbered application under Order 21 Rule 99 and 101 C.P.C. to conduct enquiry about the petitioner/third party's legal right and possession. This application was returned by the Executing Court with the following queries: “(i) Already similar kind of petition, which was filed by the petitioner in E.A. No.58/00 was dismissed. (ii) As against the order, the petitioner had filed C.R.P. in C.R.P.(MD)No. 87/2008 and sought time to hand over possession of the premises. Hon'ble High Court granted time to vacate the premises. In these circumstances, how this petition is maintainable. Hence returned.” 5. For the above said queries, no answer was given by the revision petitioner and the said unnumbered application was also not represented after answering the queries. Without representing the execution application, the revision petitioner being a third party to the suit in O.S.No.449 of 1994 had again approached this court with this revision. 6. This Court has perused the averments of the grounds of the civil revision and on considering the submissions made by Mr. R. Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner this Court is of the considered view that this Civil Revision Petition itself is not at all maintainable and therefore, this revision is deserves exhibited to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the revision petitioner to represent the unnumbered execution application before the Executing Court, after answering the queries made by the said Court within a week's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Registry is also directed to return the original unnumbered application forthwith so as to enable the revision petitioner to represent the same before the Executing Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed.