Periaswamy vs Anchalai Ammal and Another

T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—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.

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 Others Vs. Veerabadra Chettiar and Others, , 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

State Trading Corporation Of India (Agricultural Production Divn.) within the jurisdiction of the District Court Vs. S.S. Mohte and Company

registered firm of partnership by managing partner Sri Suraj Chand Motin and Another, is also brought to my notice wherein it has been held that

if the order passed under Order 21 Rule 93 CPC is treated as a decree as provided under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC 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.

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.

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.