SETHUPATHY Vs. C S JEEVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition arises out of the Order in E.A.No.353/2000 in E.P.No.60/1997 in O.S.No.209/1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee, dismissing the Petition filed under Section 47 CPC. Defendants 5 and 6 are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) 1. Facts in nutshell are as follows :

(3.) IN this revision, Court has called for back papers and I have carefully examined the records. The E.P. was filed even in the year 1994. Be that as it may, in E.P.s, the Revision Petitioners have entered appearance. The E.P. was adjourned to various dates. Perhaps only at that stage, I.A.No.834/1995 was filed by the Revision Petitioners. The Revision Petitioners have also filed their counter stating that they have taken steps to set aside the exparte Decree. On 16.04.1999, counsel for the Revision Petitioners reported 'no instructions' and the Revision Petitioners were called absent and set exparte on 16.04.1999 and fresh proclamation was ordered. For one reason or other, proclamation was not issued and again fresh proclamation was ordered on 16.10.2000. Thereafter, E.P. was adjourned to 04.12.2000 and the sale could not be held and again adjourned to 14.12.2000, as per the Order in E.A.No.338/2004 [nature of E.A. not known from the records], only at that stage, the Revision Petitioners have filed Petition under Section 47 CPC raising objection as to the executability of the Decree. By a mere perusal of the Order Sheet in the E.P., it is quite obvious that S.47 CPC Petition has been filed only to delay the Execution Proceedings. The objection that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and that the Decree is a nullity was not at all raised by the Revision Petitioners at early point of time. The Revision Petitioners, who had participated in the proceedings in all stages, cannot raise the objection regarding the executability of Decree by filing Petition under Section 47 CPC.