The revision petitioner must establish an independent right for the suit property and prove any alleged collusion to maintain a Revision Petition.

1. This Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 12. 2004 passed in S.A. No.4491 of 2004 in E.P. No.271 of 2004 in O.S. No.1744 of 2002 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the third party.

3. Initially, a Suit in O.S. No.1744 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff before the IX

Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai for the relief of recovery of possession. The IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai decreed the Suit in favour of the plaintiff by the order dated 111. 2006. The decree holder/plaintiff filed E.P. No.271 of 2004 before the same Court. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein i.e. the wife of the defendant in O.S. No.1744 of 2002 has filed S.A. No.4491 of 2004 for the relief of recognizing the petitioner as an obstructor in the scheduled property mentioned in the above S.P. No.271 of 2004. While deciding the matter, the learned IX Assistant City Civil Judge was not satisfied with the reasons stated by the obstructor and hence he dismissed the S.A. No order dated 12. 2004. Aggrieved over the said order passed by the learned IX Assistant City Civil Judge, dated 12. 2004 the unsuccessful petitioner in E.A. filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The only point to be decided in this Revision Petition is that whether there is any infirmity found in the order passed by the learned IX Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.

5. When this Revision Petition is taken up today for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is the wife of the defendant in the Suit in O.S. No.1744 of 2002. The Revision petitioner is not having any cordial relationship with her husband. It is further stated that the revision petitioner has already initiated proceedings against her husband for getting maintenance before the II Additional Family Judge, Chennai and the same was pending. Since the said proceeding was pending before the Court, the mother and the son colluded with each other. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has initiated the eviction proceedings for vacating the revision petitioner from the premises. Therefore, the order passed by the learned IX Assistant City Civil Judge is not at all sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Execution Petition filed by the revision petitioner before the IX Assistant City Civil Judge under Order 21, Rule 97 is not maintainable under law.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on the decision reported in Babulal vs. Raj Kumar and others, 1996 (3) SCC 154.

8. On consideration of the reasons stated by the revision petitioner before the said Court, the Court passed an order under Rule 98. It is emphasized by the counsel that if any order is passed under Rule 98, the only remedy is available to prefer an Appeal before the appropriate Court under Order 21, Rule 103. In such circumstances, the Revision Petition filed by the 3rd party is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

9. The learned counsel would further submit that the revision petitioner herein has not established any independent right for the suit property. Hence, the learned Judge rightly dismissed the Petition filed in E.A. No.4491 of 2004.

10. A perusal of the order passed by the learned IX Assistant City Civil Judge would clearly reveal the fact that the revision petitioner hasnot come forward to establish any independent right on behalf of her. Moreover, the collusion stated by the revision petitioner between the plaintiff and the defendant is also not established. In such circumstances, the learned Judge has decided the matter on merit and no infirmity is found in the order passed in E.A. No.4491 of 2004.

11. A careful consideration of the reasons submitted by the learned counsel appearing for t