Jurisdiction under Art.227 is extraordinary jurisdiction.

This is yet another case where the decree-holder is kept at bay by the tactics adopted by the judgment-debtor and his family members.

2. One Gangaiah Naidu filed an eviction petition against one Abraham, the first respondent herein, in R.C.O.P.No.80 of 1978 for eviction. The eviction petition as ordered on 14. 1981. The appeal in R.C.A.No.110 of 1981 was dismissed on 7. 1983. Pending appeal, the original owner having died, the present revision petitioners came on record as the Legal Representatives. In the meantime, one Jayaseeli, wife of the tenant, filed a suit O.S.No.1033 of 1983 before the District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Poonamallee for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the property, subject matter of the proceedings, alleging that the site and the superstructure belonged to Tambaram Municipality, that she had been in possession and enjoyment by paying the rent to the Municipality everyday, and that the revision petitioners had no right whatsoever in the property. She also sought an interim injunction pending suit. Though initially ad interim injunction was granted, subsequently it was vacated on 2. 1984. The appeal therefrom in C.M.A.No.4 of 1984 was dismissed on 23. 1985 and the further revision in C.R.P.No.376 of 1985 was dismissed by this Court on 7. 1986. In the meantime, the petitioners had filed E.P.No.14 of 1984. delivery also was ordered, they took possession on 4. 1984 and it was recorded on 24. 1984. The suit filed before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, by the wife of the judgment-debtor was transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram, renumbered as O.S.No.118 of 1993 and it was dismissed on 26. 1994. By some means, the wife of the judgment-debtor took possession of the property necessitating the filing of a petition by the revision petitioners for re-delivery of possession. This application was dismissed on 2. 1995. As against the decision, C.R.P.No.406 of 1996 came to be filed by the revision petitioners before this Court. On 16. 1997, it was reported before this Court that the tenant had vacated and the civil revision petition was dismissed as infructuous.

3. The revision petitioners filed E.P.No.83 of 1987 in R.C.O.P.No.80 of 1978 before the District Munsif Court, Tambaram and on 110. 1997 took the court bailiff to the premises and it was found that the tenant Abraham was not in the petition mentioned premises, but one Joseph was in occupation and was carrying on business at the time of execution of the said warrant. and that he also obstructed the execution of the warrant. The court bailiff being unable to execute the warrant, as there was no order of the court for removal of obstruction, the warrant was returned as not executed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.A.No.393 of 1997 for removal of obstruction under O.27, Rule 97, C.P.C. The same having been dismissed, the present revision petition has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The lower court has reasoned that the petition mentioned property had been delivered long ago and such delivery was recorded and execution petition terminated as early as on 24. 1984 and there could not be any delivery or request for removal of the third party obstructor after a lapse of 13 years in respect of the same property.

5. I am in total disagreement with the reasoning of the lower court. Courts are there to do justice and not to throw out cases on technicalities. This is a case where, as noted at the very beginning, the judgment-debtor and his kith and kin have been successfully keeping the owner of the property at bay by adopting frustrating tactics. The owner of the property succeeded and obtained an order for eviction. It was confirmed, execution filed, delivery ordered, delivery taken and recorded and at that stage the wife of the judgment-debtor enters the arena, files a suit, seeks an injunction, though ultimately