In this civil revision petition, the revision petitioners have challenged the fair and decreetal orders, dated 12.06.2017, passed in E.A.No.17 of 2016 in E.P.No.18 of 2012 in O.S.No.54 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sattur.
2. Based on the materials placed, it is found that, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, this is the fourth round of litigation between the parties claiming right, title or interest in the suit property.
3. It is found that following decree obtained in O.S.No.54 of 2008, which is a suit for declaration and recovery of possession after removing the superstructure put up on the suit property by the defendant, it is found that the first respondent has levied execution proceedings against the defendant in the above mentioned suit, who has been arrayed as the second respondent in this civil revision petition, in E.P.No.18 of 2012. It is found that the litigation between the parties in respect of the suit property involved in the matter has been lingering from 1994 onwards. Though all along the suit property had been declared to be the property of the first respondent herein, it is found that only after the above mentioned suit had culminated in a decree in favour of the first respondent, it is found that it was made possible for him to prefer the execution petition for recovery of possession of the suit property from the second respondent.
4. Resisting the order of delivery passed in favour of the first respondent in the execution proceedings, it is found that the revision petitioners have preferred an application, in E.A.No.17 of 2016, claiming some rights or shares in the suit property by putting forth their case and it is found that the said application has been preferred by the revision petitioners under Order XXI Rule 97 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application has been resisted by the first respondent contending that the petitioners have no semblance of right, title or interest in the suit property and only with a view to delay the execution proceedings and at the instigation of the second respondent, they have come forward with the application and hence, the same does not merit acceptance and liable to be dismissed.
5. The Court below, on a consideration of the materials placed, found that the claim of the revision petitioners to the suit property as put forth by them not having been substantiated with acceptable and reliable evidence and further holding that the application has been preferred only to delay the execution proceedings has ultimately dismissed the application preferred by the revision petitioners. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterated the same contentions as raised by the revision petitioners in the Trial Court in support of their case as detailed in E.A.No.17 of 2016.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable and the present proceedings initiated by the revision petitioners being the fourth round of litigation only with view to thwart the execution proceedings filed by the first respondent and to defeat him from enjoying the fruits of the decree, the petitioners have preferred the application without any basis and the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the suit property and the civil revision petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. In sofar as this matter is concerned, it is not necessary to advert to the merits of the contentions of either parties in this civil revision petition. As adverted above, when it is the case of the revision petitioners that the application had been preferred by them in E.A.No.17 of 2016, under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any order passed in such application being in the nature of the decree as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby such order having the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it was a decree, it is found that the revision petitioners, if at all they have any grievance over the order passed by the Lower Court in their application preferred under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the only remedy available to them is to prefer an appeal before the appropriate forum and not challenge the same by way of revision.
9. Further, as seen from Section 115 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, when the impugned order being in the nature of decree against which appal lies before the appropriate forum, it is found that the High Court shall not vary or reverse such orders by invoking the revision provision. Therefore, it is found that the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable in the eyes of law and it is found that the petition is liable to be rejected. In sofar as the order passed under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C., is an appealable order and not a revisable order and the revision would not lie thereof, an useful reference may be made to the decision reported in 2006 (3) CTC 171 [S.Rajeswari vs. S.N.Kulasekaran and others], which has been subsequently followed by our High Court in the decision reported in 2015 (1) CTC 516 [C.Murugan vs. Dr.Thilagavathy and another]. A perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that the revision cannot be entertained by the High Court as against the order passed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there is a clear prohibition under Section 115 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, when an appeal is provided to the said order under Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it is found that the revision preferred by the revision petitioners as against the impugned order is found to be legally not maintainable.
10. In the light of the above position, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The District Munsif, Sattur.
.