B K JINNAH Vs. K P KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment -debtor in E.P.No.23 of 1992 in O.S. No. 33 of 1985 on the file of Sub -Court, Tuticorin, has come forward with this revision petition. The said E.P. is for executing the specific performance decree obtained in the said suit by the respondent -plaintiff. The said E.P. was filed for execution of the sale deed pursuant to the decree. The impugned order in the abovesaid E.P. is dated 19.11.1992.

(2.) Even at the outset, I must state that a certified copy of fair order in the said E.P. has not been produced at all by the revision petitioner, even though it has been held by this Court that the production of such copy of the fair order cannot be dispensed with. Anyway, going into the merits of the case, I find from the certified copy of the E.P. petition and orders thereof, filed by the petitioner that on 19.11.1992, the following order has been passed. "Expenses paid. For production of fair deed 7.12.1992".

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that before ordering the decree -holder to produce the fair sale deed the court below should have followed the procedure prescribed under Order 21, Rule 34(i), C.P.C. The relevant portion of the said rule runs as follows: