Madras High Court
Periaswamy vs Anchalai Ammal And Anr. on 10 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)CTC521
ORDER T.N. Vallinayagam, J.
1. This revision petition is preferred by a third party against the order of the District Munsif, Virudhachalam, who declined to grant redelivery of possession taken from the third party, in execution of a decree to which such third party was not a party. When the revision petition is taken up for hearing, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision under Order XXI Rule 103 C.P.C.
2. Order XXI Rule 103 CPC makes it clear that any order made under Rule 98 or Rule 100 shall have the same force and subject to the conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. Learned counsel also brings to my notice a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in M. Chockalingam and Ors. v. Veerabadra Chettiar and Ors., 1984 (I) MLJ 17 , wherein it has been held that such an order has to be conclusive with regard to the rights of the parties and has the force of a decree and is subject to an appeal as if it were a decree. Another decision reported in P. Pathrakali Nadachi v. V. Subbiah Nadar and Ors., 1981 (1) MLJ 452 is also brought to my notice wherein it has been held that "if the order passed under Order 21 Rule 93 Civil Procedure Code is treated as a decree as provided under Order 21 Rule 103 Civil Procedure Code only an appeal will lie". Consequently, it is contended that the present Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. I agree. It is clear that revision petition is not maintainable and only an appeal would lie to the Sub-Court, Virudhachalam against the above order.
3. In view of the fact that the decree itself is of the year 1981 and the order under revision was passed in the year 1990, I think it is in the interest of parties and justice, to allow the petitioner to treat the present Civil Revision Petition itself as an appeal against the order and allow him to prosecute the appeal before the Sub-Court, Virudhachalam. The Appellate Court is hereby directed to allow the petitioner to prosecute the petition filed herein as appeal, after permitting the respondents herein to file whatever further documents they want to file. The appellate court may even grant permission to both parties to adduce evidence, if they so require. The appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and report such compliance to this Court. The C.R.P. is ordered accordingly. No costs.
4. Registry is directed to despatch all the papers including the main C.R.P. to the Sub-Court, Virudhachalam so that the Sub-Court can take the same on file, number it as an appeal and follow the above directions of this, Court.