The petitioner herein have projected this Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the order dated 25.07.2006 passed in E.A.No.60/06 in E.P.No.8/06 in O.S.No.367/92 passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Nannilam, Tiruvarur District in dismissing the petition under Section 47 Civil Procedure Code application filed by the petitioners herein.
2. The trial Court while passing orders in E.A.No.60/06 has inter-alia observed that the revision petitioners have not projected proper reasons in filing an application in E.A.No.60/06 under Section 47 and further that they have not produced documents and further that Section 47 application has been filed with a view to procastinate the execution proceedings and resultantly dismissed the application in limini without costs.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court in E.A.60/06 is against law and all probabilities of the case and more over the trial Court ought to have seen that the suit property belongs to the Government and Sri Kothandaramar Temple and the same has been mentioned in the Advocate Commissioner's report and therefore both the Government and Sri Kothandaramar Temple are the necessary parties and they should have been impleaded in the main suit for resolving the disputes in controversy between the parties and as a matter of fact, the Nannilam Tahsildhar has issued a patta in favour of the petitioners in respect of Item No.1 of the suit property mentioned in the plaint schedule and these aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the trail Court in proper perspective and that the vendor of the Respondent/Plaintiff viz. Rajendran has no right over the suit property and therefore prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice.
4. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side and noticed the contentions.
5. It is to be noted that the revision petitioners have filed E.A.No.60/06 before the trial Court inter-alia averring that the respondent/plaintiff's vendor Rajendran has no right to sell the properties and the said sale is not valid and also an illegal one and in fact the suit has been filed based on the illegal sale and that the respondent/plaintiff has suppressed the real facts before the Court of law and the 1st item of suit schedule property belongs to the Government Natham and the 2nd Item of property belongs to the Sri Kothandaramar Temple at Mudikondan Village and in respect of these details, the respondent/plaintiff has not amended the plaint and even after the Advocate Commissioner's report refer to the ownership of the Government and the Temple in respect of the properties mentioned supra. The respondent/plaintiff has suppressed the fact and therefore a decree obtained in pursuance of the same cannot be executed by the Court and therefore prays for allowing the application.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff informs before this Court that the respondent/plaintiff has not filed any counter to the E.A.No.60/06. However, the trial Court has passed a docket order on 25.07.2006 by not accepting the reasons assigned by the revision petitioners and resultantly dismissed the application.
7. Also the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff brings to the notice of this Court that the 2nd revision petitioner has filed Second Appeal No.1496/99 and C.M.P.No.1614/1999 before this court and on 06.12.1999, this Court has dismissed the Second Appeal with costs and also ultimately dismissed the C.M.P.
8. This Court quite aptly extracts the relevant portion of the observation of this Court in S.A.No.1496/1999 dated 06.12.1999 which runs as follows:
"10. In this suit, the second defendant has taken a contention that the property is a Government Poramboke and the Government assigned the land in their favour. Rejecting that contention, the trial Court as well as the lower appellate court held that the entire property belonged to the plaintiff as per sale deed taken by him from Rajendran. On the basis of the said finding, it has to be held that no government land is included in the plaint schedule property and the Government also cannot grant patta in respect of property which did not belong to them. That finding of the trial Court is not disturbed in appeal"
9. In view of the fact that the pleas taken by the revision petitioners before this Court in the Civil Revision Petition have already been concluded by this court in its judgement in Second Appeal No.1496/1999 dated 06.12.1999, wherein it is specifically observed that "no government land is included in the plaint schedule property and the Government also cannot grant patta in respect of property which did not belong to them. That finding of the trial Court is not disturbed in appeal.", and hence this Court is of the considered view that the respondent/plaintiff is to enjoy the fruits of the decree and the respondent/plaintiff cannot be prevented in any manner in law when the proceedings upto Second Appeal have not ended in favour of the revision petitioners and also this Court is of the considered opinion that after the disposal of the Second Appeal No. 1496/1999 by this Court, the Section 47 application filed by the revision petitioners is not perse maintainable in law and viewed in that perspective, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs and the order passed is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
ars/gv