Aggrieved over the rejection of plaint, the petitioner is before this Court.
2. According to the petitioner, she has filed a suit in O.S.No.174 of 2003 for maintenance and charge over the disputed property, which is pending. During the pendency, the respondents fraudulently obtained a decree for specific performance and sought to execute the same. She became aware of the same only when an attempt was made to take delivery of possession. Hence the suit.
3. The Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that all the issues pertaining to Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Code shall be tried and decided by the Execution Court itself and a separate suit is specifically barred. Therefore, the petitioner shall approach the Execution Court and Family Court has no jurisdiction to maintain the suit. Aggrieved over the decision, the petitioner preferred the above revision on the ground that a separate suit is very much maintainable as no notice was served on her nor she is the party to the proceedings.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that an attempt is made to take delivery of possession of the property over which she has a charge by view of O.S.No.174 of 2003. Admittedly, the suit is pending and has not reached finality.
6. Secondly, in a specific performance suit, the parties to the contract alone be the parties and third parties cannot have any right. In execution of a decree if a person in possession is aggrieved, he / she has to approach the Execution Court under appropriate provision of law under Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code. In cases of obstruction, Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code holds the field. In so far as the issue arising between parties under Rules 97 or 99, questions relating to right, title or interest in the property shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit. When there is a statutory bar to maintain a separate suit, the contention that a separate suit is maintainable is not sustainable in law. The order passed by the Trial Court suffers no infirmity.
7. In such circumstances, the present Civil Revision Petition merits no consideration and accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
13.09.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK To The Family Court Puducherry.
C.R.P.(NPD) NO.3836 OF 2015
13.09.2017