RAMACHANDRAN Vs. DINAKARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 24.9.2014 passed in R.E.A. No. 33 of 2014 in R.E.P. No. 97 of 2013 in O.S. No. 7 of 2008 by the Subordinate Court at Kallakurichi. The Petitioner is a third party to the Suit in O.S. No. 7 of 2008 filed by the First Respondent against the Respondents 2 to 4. The First Respondent, as Plaintiff filed the Suit, for partition claiming 1/4th share in the Suit properties. A Preliminary Decree was passed in the Suit on 10.11.2009. In the Application filed in I.A. No. 553 of 2010 the learned Sub-Judge passed Final Decree on 13.8.2013. On the basis of the Decree passed in the Suit, the Plaintiff filed E.P. No. 97 of 2013 for delivery of possession.

(2.) In the Execution Petition, the Petitioner filed E.A. No. 33 of 2014 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code praying the Executing Court to delete the properties purchased by the Petitioner from the Defendants 1 & 3 through Sale Deeds dated 22.2.2008 and 28.5.2009. The Application was resisted by the First Respondent. The learned Sub-Judge, Kallakurichi dismissed the Application. Aggrieved by the Order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner had purchased 1/2 share in the Suit property from the Defendants 1 & 3 by registered Sale Deeds, but at the time of sale, the Petitioner was not informed about the pendency of the Suit. It is further submitted that the First Defendant remained ex parte and the Third Defendant also did not take part in the Final Decree proceedings. Since the Petitioner was not aware of the Suit proceedings, he filed a separate Suit in O.S. No. 13 of 2014 on the file of the District Court, Villupuram, challenging the Preliminary Decree and Final Decree passed in the present Suit. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the Petitioner had knowledge about the Final Decree proceedings in the month of May, 2013, as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the Petitioner is having 3 years period to challenge the Decree. The learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment. R. Ranganatha Naidu v. R. Subramuniya Mudaliar, 1998 1 CTC 589; and Rasomay Mitra v. Lachmi Todi, 1982 AIR(Cal) 178 in support of his contention.