2.S.Karumanan (D2)
3.R.Jayapal (D4)
4.Pavayee (D5)
5.Chinnapillai (D6)
6.Karupayeeammal (d7) .. Respondents 2 to 6 In CRP.NPD.No.1748 of 2006 Jayalakshmi .. Revision Petitioner / Plaintiff Vs.
1.P.Nachimuthu Gounder (died)
2.N.Karumannan
3.R.Jayapal
4.Pavayee
5.Chinnapillai
6.Karupayeeammal
7.Lakshmi
8.Ravi
9.Chandrasekarn .. Respondents / Respondents Prayer in S.A.No.325/2006:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment dated 22.12.2005 in A.S.No.47 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment dated 11.08.2004 in O.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.
Prayer in CRP.NPD.No.1748 of 2006:- This revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against the order dated 12.10.2006 in REA.No.228 of 2006 in REP.No.28 of 2005 in O.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.
S.A.No.325 of 2006:- S.A.No.325 of 2006 has been preferred against the judgment in A.S.No.47 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, which had arisen out of the judgment in O.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal. The suit was decreed in respect of the plaint schedule Item Nos.1 & 2 properties as prayed for giving six months time to the defendants to remove the superstructure and handover the possession. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, D3 had preferred appeal in A.S.No.47 of 2005 before the Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, who after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, has dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the learned trial Judge.
2.There is no representation for the appellants in the Second Appeal even today. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
3.CRP.NPD.No.1748 of 2006:- Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation for the respondents. This revision has been preferred against the order passed in REA.No.228 of 2006 in REP.No.28 of 2005 in O.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal. The said REA.No.228 of 2006 was filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff for removal of obstruction and for delivery. The Execution Court has dismissed the said application on the ground that CMP.No.4369 of 2006 is pending before this Court and that against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.171 of 2004, S.A.No.325 of 2006 has been preferred before this Court. Today S.A.No.325 of 2006 was dismissed for non-prosecution. Now, there is no impediment to execute the decree in O.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, through REP.No.28 of 2005.
3.Under such circumstances, this revision is allowed and the order of dismissal passed in REA.No.228 of 2006 in REP.No.28 of 2005 in O.S.No.171 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, is set aside and REA.No.228 of 2006 is allowed. The Execution Court is directed to dispose of REP.No.28 of 2005 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Second Appeal No.325 of 2006 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
ssv To,
1.The Subordinate Court, Namakkal.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.
3.The Additional District Munsif, Namakkal