The interested party affected by the execution of a decree should be sufficiently represented and given an opportunity to show cause against the execution, as per Order 21 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 12.12.2005, passed in E.A.No.5087 of 2005 in E.P.No.2005 of 2005 in O.S.No.5681 of 1991 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Chennai.)

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 12.12.2005, passed in E.A.No.5087 of 2005 in E.P.No.2005 of 2005 in O.S.No.5681 of 1991 on the file of the IX Assistant Judge,City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that one Krishnan, who is the father of respondents 1 to 5, had filed a suit against him in O.S.No.5 681 of1991 on the file of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a permanent injunction restraining him from putting up unauthorised construction in suit B-Schedule property and also for a direction by mandatory injunction to respondents 6 and 7 herein , who are defendants 2 and 3 in the suit to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner in the suit B-Schedule property. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a detailed written statement contending that he had not put up any new construction in the suit property and that there was no unauthorised construction in the suit property as alleged by the plaintiff. However, the trial Court, on an erroneous appreciation of facts and law, decreed the suit. Against the said Judgment and decree, dated 22.06.1999, passed in O.S.No.5681 of 1991, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, with a petition to condone the delay in filling the appeal. The delay was condoned as per the order of this Court, dated 05.04.2005 in C.R.P.No.1851 of 2001. The appeal preferred by the petitioner is yet to be numbered.

3. Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff Krishnan who died on 12.03.2001, after the disposal of the suit. Respondents 1 to 5 filed an execution petition in E.P.No.2005 of 2005 before the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for executing the decree of mandatory injunction for demolition of the suit property. The Execution Petition was filed against defendants 2 and 3, who are respondents 6 and 7 in this Civil Revision Petition. The respondents 1 to 5 were trying to execute the decree without notice. On coming to know about the Execution Petition, the petitioner had immediately filed an application in E.A.No.5087 of 2005 in E.P.No.2 005 of 2005 to implead him as a necessary party in the said Execution Petition.

4. The petitioner states that in the impleading petition, he had raised several contentions to substantiate that he is a necessary party in the Execution petition, since the execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.5681 of 1991 involves his right, title and interest in suit B-Schedule property and that the decree granted in O.S.No.5681 of 19 91 is beyond the relief sought for in the suit. The petitioner further states that the decree as it stands today is unexecutable as no portion of the property is identified for execution.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that there is no finding recorded by learned Trial Judge so as to show in which portion of the property was the unauthorised construction put up. Defendants 2 and 3 had remained exparte in the suit and had not produced any records to show that the building in suit B-Schedule property is unauthorised.

Unless and until it is shown that the building in suit B-Schedule property is put up in violation of the Building Rules and Regulations, defendants 2 and 3 cannot initiate any action against the petitioner.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Order 21 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code and the principle underlying the mandatory provision is that the interested party, which would be affected by the execution of the decree, should be sufficiently represented and given an opportunity to show cause against the