The judgment highlighted the importance of a reasoned speaking order on merits and emphasized the need for the Executing Court to consider the contentions of all parties involved.

The petitioner/third party has filed this revision petition as against the order dated 310. 2008 in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 in E.P.No.1593 of 2005 in O.S.No.6016 of 2001 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in allowing the application filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by the first respondent/ applicant/decree holder to direct the revision petitioner/ 3rd respondent to afford necessary facility and permission in regard to the conduct of election in compliance with the orders in E.P.No.1593 of 2005 dated 29.08.2005.

2. The Executing Court, while passing orders in E.A.No.4448 of 2006, has inter alia opined that ... The Decree was not set aside, on that ground it is executable. The decree is still in force in respect of the other office bearers of the Association. The General Manager is not conducting the election. He has to afford facility and permission. The D1 to D4 filed appeal before the Principal Judge against the decree and the same was dismissed. Hence the decree is still in force. Hence in the interest of justice, this petition has to be allowed and resultantly, allowed the application.

.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/third party urges before this Court that the impugned order of the Executing Court dated 310. 2008 in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 in E.P.No.1593 of 2005 in O.S.No.6016 of 2001 is against law and the same is legally unsustainable and the said order has been passed without considering any of the contentions raised and further the Executing Court has committed an error in ignoring an important fact that the relief projected in E.A.No.4448 of 2006 is beyond the ambit and scope of the decree obtained and added further, the revision petitioner/third party is not a party to the suit or the decree and therefore, the revision petitioner/third party is not bound by the tenor of the decree and moreover, the first respondent (applicant in E.A.No.4448 of 2006) is endeavouring to legitimise the unrecognised association and its office bearers who have no locus as far as the Railways is concerned and as a matter of fact, the Southern Railway Protection Force Members Association to which the first respondent/applicant seeks to conduct elections cannot function independently in that name and that the Association ceased to exist and its registration has lapsed due to its non-functioning on and from 29. 1985 and the registration has been cancelled as defunct under Section 44(4) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1975 and only the All India Railway Protection Force Association is recognised by Railway Board, for all the Zonal Railways and Railway Protection Force and also that as per Order XXVII Rule 2 of the First Schedule to Civil Procedure Code, the Central Government has authorised the office specified in the schedule to act for and on behalf of the Union of India in respect of judicial proceedings pertaining to the Railway administration and the revision petitioner/third respondent is the General Manager, Southern Railway and he is to act only in his capacity as Zonal Head of the Southern Railway and further the Principal Head of the Department, the Chief Security Commissioner is legally competent to represent the Railway administration and this being the factual position, the observation of the Executing Court that the Chief Security Commissioner has not been authorised by the General Manager who has filed the counter is not a valid one in the eye of law inasmuch as the order of the Railway Board, New Delhi dated 6. 1992 in RBE No.92/92 No.E(G) 82 LL2/2(B) speaks of the Central Governments authorisation authorising the Chief Security Commissioner of the Railways to act for and on behalf of the Union of India in respect of any judicial proceedings relating to Railway administration and this vital fact has not been taken note of by the Executing Court which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and in short, the Executing Court has not considered th