Final decree not engrossed on paper non-judicial stamp paper.

Civil Revision Petition No.42 of 1990 arises against the order made in E.P.No.6 of 1988 in O.S.No.5 of 1960 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai. The first defendant/first judgment-debtor, is the petitioner in the civil revision petition and the plaintiff/decree holder is the respondent. A preliminary decree against the first defendant/petitioner was passed on 8.21965 and the final decree was passed on 21. 1979. In this E.P., the respondent has claimed a sum of Rs.1,16,3155. The E.P. is filed under 0.21, Rules 54,66 and 72 and under Sec.151 C.P.C. for realisa-tion of the said amount by order of attachment and sale of the property of the first defendant mentioned in the E.P. The execution is resisted by the first defendant by filing a counter contending inter alia that the plaintiff/decree holder is not entitled to claim his share in the execution petition. The preliminary decree is to the following effect:

“That the plaintiff be and hereby entitled to recover 1/2 share in the outstandings of Rs.52,000 in the E. Schedule. So, any claim contrary to that which is provided for in the preliminary decree cannot be countenanced.”

Further, the petitioner herein has submitted that he has preferred an appeal to this Court against the final decree and that the matter is pending in this Court. The execution petition, according to him is therefore premature. The lower court negativing the contention of the petitioner herein, allowed the execution petition to be proceeded with further. The lower court in its order has observed that even if the counsel fee has been exaggerated in the execution petition, it could be reduced later on after the properties were sold and the sale proceeds were collected. The lower court also has observed that there is no evidence to show that an appeal has been filed in this Court as against the final decree and that there is no stay also from this Court. With this observation, the lower court allowed the execution petition.

2. In this C.R.P.No.42 of 1990, the petitioner has contended that the decree-holder had admitted in the lower court that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 24 acres of land. The other contention raised by the petitioner herein, is that the parties are separately in possession and enjoyment of the properties and that they should be allowed to retain those properties.

3. C.R.P.No.610 of 1990 arises against the order made in E.P.No.14 of 1989 in O.S.No.5 of 1960 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pat-tukottai. The E.P. was filed by the plaintiff/decree holder respondent herein under 0.21, Rule 35, C.P.C. for delivery of possession of the properties mentioned in the execution petition. This E.P. was resisted by the first defendant/judgment debtor, the petitioner herein by filing a counter to the E.P. contending inter alia that the decree-holder/ respondent herein is not entitled to delivery of possession of the properties on the ground that the execution is laid mainly basing on the commissioner’s report for which the petitioner herein has filed his objections. The petitioner further contended that the decree-holder himself filed an application for amendment of decree and that without getting any orders on the same, he has filed an execution petition for delivery of possession. The contentions are not relevant for the disposal of the civil revision petition.

4. The lower court has observed in the order that whatever objections the first defendant has got to say against this execution, he could make such objections before the Amin at the time of delivery. In this way, the lower court-has repelled the contentions of the first defendant and allowed the execution application for delivery of possession.

5. C.R.P.No.1038 of 1991 arises against the order made in I.A.No.136 of 1991 in I.A.No.303 of 1971 in O.S.No.5 of 1960 in the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. The first defendant in O.S.No.5 of 1960 is the petitioner herein and