Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Challenging the docket order passed in the Execution Petition in E.P.No.10 of 2015 in Ejectment Suit No.11 of 1992 on the file of Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the Judgment Debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. Pursuant to the decree passed in the Ejectment Suit No.11 of 1992, the respondents/decree holders filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.10 of 2015 for taking delivery of possession. In the Execution Petition, the judgment debtor filed a Memo stating that the schedule of property, mentioned in the suit and in the Execution Petition are different, therefore, the delivery should not be ordered by the Executing Court.

3. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes considered the Memo, filed by the Judgment Debtor and closed the same on 11.07.2016, finding that there is no confusion with regard to the identity of the property.

4. On a perusal of the schedule of property, mentioned in the Ejectment Suit and in the Execution Petition, it is clear that the Decree Holders have mentioned the same door number, street name and the area. In the Ejectment suit and in the Execution Petition, the Decree Holders have mentioned the address of the property as Door No.94, Suryanarayana Chetty Street, Royapuram, Madras-600013. Therefore, when there is no confusion with regard to the identity of the property, I do not find merit in the memo, filed by the judgment debtor, which was rightly closed by the Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.