This Revision has been directed the against the order passed in EA.No.6932 of 2007 in EP.No.932 of 2007 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. EA.No.6932 of 2007 in EP.No.932 of 2007 was filed under Section 47 of CPC.
2.The grievance of the revision petitioner / Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 is that EP.No.932 of 2007 was not filed by the Decree Holder and that the EP.No.932 of 2007 filed under Order 21 Rule 66 & 90 of CPC was not maintainable.
3.A perusal of the EP.No.932 of 2007 will go to show that the said application was filed by the Auction Purchaser of the plaint 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties in the final decree passed in I.A.No.16385 of 2002 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991, so the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there was no final decree passed in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 and that it cannot be executed in EP.No.932 of 2007 cannot be sustainable. A reading of the final decree in I.A.No.16385 of 2002 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 (at page 1 of the typed set of papers filed by the respondent) will go to show that 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties to the plaint cannot be partitioned as per the preliminary decree and on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner's report, the Advocate Commissioner was directed to sell both 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties for the upset price of Rs.66,30,000/- since those properties could not be partitioned. Thereafter, a public auction was conducted by the Advocate Commissioner and in the public auction conducted by the Advocate Commissioner on 08.04.2006 the petitioner in EP.No.932 of 2007 had purchased both plaint 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties for Rs.66,30,000/-, which was also deposited to the credit in I.A.No.16385 of 2002 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 and the sale certificate was also issued in favour of him. In the final decree, the shares to which the parties are entitled to the sale proceeds of 'A' & 'B' scheduled properties has also been dealt with. If the revision petitioner has got any grievance against the final decree, he ought to have preferred an appeal against the final decree. The learned Executing Court after taking into consideration all the aspects and the objections raised by the Revision petitioner herein in EA.No.6932 of 2007 in EP.No.932 of 2007 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 has dismissed the Section 47 application ie., EA.No.6932 of 2007. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Executing Court in EA.No.6932 of 2007 in EP.No.932 of 2007 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 on the file of the Xth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4.In fine, the Revision is dismissed confirming the order passed in EA.No.6932 of 2007 in EP.No.932 of 2007 in O.S.No.2784 of 1991 on the file of the Xth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
ssv To, The X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai