In this civil revision petition the fair and decreetal orders, dated 14.03.2007, passed in E.P.No.532 of 2004 in O.S.No.419 of 1997, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, are impugned.
2. It is found that the respondent had laid the suit in O.S.No.419 of 1997 as against the petitioners herein for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. It is further found that the said suit, after contest, had ended in a decree in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. It is further found that in respect of the same subject matter comprised in O.S.No.419 of 1997, the respondent / plaintiff had laid another suit in O.S.No.247 of 1998, against certain third parties for the reliefs of permanent injunction and recovery of possession. It is found that the said suit laid by the respondent had come to be dismissed. It is, thus, found that as against the same subject matter, the suit laid by the respondent herein, wherein the petitioners herein are the parties, had been decreed and the another suit laid by the respondent herein for the same subject matter, as against some third parties, had come to be dismissed. As regards, O.S.No.247 of 1998, it is found that the relief of possession claimed by the respondent herein had been negatived.
3. Be that as it may, alleging that the petitioners had disobeyed the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.419 of 1997 by initiating Patta proceedings in favour of the third parties, the respondent herein had levied execution proceedings against them in E.P.No.532 of 2004. The said execution petition had been laid under Order XXI Rule 32(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said execution petition had been resisted by the petitioners herein contending that they had not acted in disobedience of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.419 of 1997 and all the proceedings that had been taken by them in respect of the subject matter were taken only prior to the passing of the Judgment and Decree and after the Judgment and Decree, they had not resorted to any action in violation of the same and hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. In this connection, it is found that the Court below, on a consideration of the evidence adduced on the petitioners' side that they had issued Patta on 25.05.1998 and in O.S.No.419 of 1997, they had been restrained from issuing Patta in respect of the subject matter in favour of the third parties and the said action on their part is in violation of the Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below and therefore, they are liable to be punished, had ordered further proceedings against the petitioners in the execution petition. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
4. It is vehemently contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners that the action initiated by the petitioners was only prior to the passing of the Judgment and Decree in the suit in O.S.No.419 of 1997 and not after that and when after the passing of the Judgment and Decree in the suit, there is no material to hold that the petitioners had acted in violation of the same, it is his contention that merely on the above evidence tendered on the petitioners' side in the execution proceedings, the Court should not have ordered further proceedings against them and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, relying upon the above admission made on the petitioners' side in the execution proceedings, contended that the Court below has rightly ordered the further proceedings against the petitioners in the execution petition.
5. On the materials placed, it is found that the Judgment and Decree had been passed in O.S.No.419 of 1997 only on 31.07.2001. In such view of the matter, the action of the petitioners in initiating Patta proceedings as against the subject matter on 25.05.1998 cannot be construed as the violation of the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit, dated 31.07.2001. Therefore, the evidence adduced on the petitioners' side that the said issuance of Patta on 25.05.1998 would amount to acting against the Judgment and Decree of the Court as such cannot be a correct statement of fact. It is, thus, found that the Court below had placed much importance on the hostile admission on the part of the petitioners without considering the fact that the Patta had been issued by the petitioners only on 25.05.1998 much prior to the passing of the Judgment and Decree in the suit. It is further found that no material has been placed by the respondent that after 31.07.2001, the petitioners had resorted to any Patta proceedings in respect of the subject matter in favour of the third parties. In such view of the matter, when the evidence adduced on the petitioners' side in the execution proceedings seen as a whole and coupled with the fact that no material has been placed by the respondent to show that the petitioners had resorted to any Patta proceedings after passing of the Judgment and Decree in the said suit, it cannot be held that the petitioners have acted in any manner willfully in disobedience of the Judgment and Decree passed in the said suit and in such view of the matter, as rightly argued by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the findings of the Court below that the petitioners have violated the Judgment and Decree passed in the suit above mentioned as such cannot be countenanced. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the Court below does not merit acceptance and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 14.03.2007, passed in E.P.No.532 of 2004 in O.S.No.419 of 1997, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil, are set aside and consequently, E.P.No.532 of 2004 is dismissed. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Principal District Munsif, Sankarankoil.
.