The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking constitutional remedies, and the limitations on filing a separate suit in execution proceedings.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 2009 before the Vacation Civil Judge (DMC), Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner had filed O.S.No.273 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore against his brother, the 2nd respondent herein for delivery of possession of the suit properties. In the said suit, Schedule 'D' is the property in dispute in the present proceedings. He got an ex parte decree in the said case on 31.07.200. He levied execution proceedings in E.P.No.133 of 2002 on the file of the above said Court for delivery. In the execution proceedings also, the 2nd respondent did not appear and delivery was ordered by the Court. When the Court Amin came to deliver the property in favour of this petitioner, the 2nd respondent obstructed and thereafter he came with a suit before the Vacation Civil Court, Coimbatore impleading this petitioner and 2nd respondent in a suit which was subsequently transferred to the Trial Court in O.S.No.248 of 2009 for permanent injunction. After filing of the suit, the petitioner has preferred this revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution praying this Court to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.248 of 2009.

3. In O.S.No.248 of 2009, the 1st respondent has alleged that the suit property originally belonged to one Venkatesh Naidu who is the father of the 1st respondent, that on 07.05.1993 Venkatesh Naidu executed an unregistered declaration deed (Urudhi Mozhi Paththiram) in favour of 2nd respondent, that this 1st respondent purchased the property from the 2nd respondent on 17.09.2008, that the properties in O.S.No.273 of 2000 and O.S.No.248 of 2009 are different, that on 28.04.2009, this petitioner came with Court Amin, police personnel and rowdy elements to vacate the plaintiff from the suit property and hence he had to file the suit and the same is pending.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Kalyanasundaram would submit that the very facts existing in this case would clearly show that the attempt on the part of the 1st respondent is abuse of process of the Court and hence under Article 227, the Court has got every power to strike off the case in O.S.No.248 of 2009, that in view of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, the 1st respondent is procluded from filing a separate suit and he should have approached the executing court under Rule 99 of Order 21 of CPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon various decisions of Supreme Court and this Court.

5. Before entering into the case law, it is profitable to go through the relevant provisions with regard to the proceedings to be taken against the obstructionists in the matter of delivery of possession in execution proceedings. In 1997 (2) L.W 266 [Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Anr], Their Lordships had an occasion to deal with Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 CPC. They have observed as follows - A conjoint reading of Order 21 Rules 97,98,99 and 101 CPC., projects the following picture :

(1) If a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed in execution of the decree for possession with the result that the decree for possession could not be executed in the normal manner by obtaining warrant for possession under Order 21, Rule 35, then the decree-holder has to move an application under Order 21, Rule 97, for removal of such obstruction and after hearing the decree-holder and the obstructionist the Court can pass appropriate orders after adjudcating upon the controversy between the parties as enjoined by Order 21, Rule 97, sub-rule (2), read with Order 21, Rule 98. It is obvious that after such adjudication, if it is found that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned without just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation or on his behalf, then such obstruction or resistance would be removed as per Order 21, Rule 98, sub-rule (2) and the decree-holder would be permitted to be put in possession. Even in such an even