The cause title must match the execution petition, and lack of appeal against the original Judgment and decree allows for the execution of the decree against the actual judgment debtor.

The revision petitioners have preferred the above revision petition seeking a direction to call for the records relating to E.P.No.332 of 2005 in Special Suit No.119 of 2001 (J.T.Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, State of Maharastra), pending on the file of the 1st Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirapalli and strike of the E.P.No.332 of 2005 in the Special Suit No.119 of 2001.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The first respondent herein namely M/s.Citizen Mills, Partnership Firm, represented by it's partner Mr.Sanjay Dachand Ghodawat, residing at Madhava Nagar, Sangli, State of Maharashtra, had initiated a Special Suit No.119 of 2001, on the file of the Civil Court, Senior Division, Sangli, State of Maharastra, against the defendants namely Mr.R.Srinivasan, Proprietor of M/s.Aruna Agencies, Old No.111, New No.153, North Andar Street, Tiruchirappalli-620 002 and Mr.Rameshwarlal Dayma, Proprietor of M/s.Dayma Enterprises & R.D.Enterprises, 14/1, Big Chetty Street, Trichy-620 008, for recovery of Rs.2,51,778.80.

3. The learned Civil Judge, by Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2004 had partly decreed the said special suit against the first defendant and directed the first defendant to pay the said sum of Rs.2,51,778.80 to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization of entire amount. The suit was dismissed as against the second defendant.

4. Subsequently, the decree-holder has filed a petition for transferring the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2004 to the District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli, for execution of the decree in the said suit, alleging that the Judgment debtor resides or has property within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Court. Accordingly, the decree-holder has filed E.P.No.332 of 2005 in Special Suit No.119 of 2001, before the 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The said execution petition was ordered by the executing Court by attaching the petitioners' property for auction and for assessing the market value through it's bailiff on the decree and Judgment obtained by the decree holder/plaintiff against the second respondent herein/judgment debtor/defendant through fraud. The said property for auction does not belong to judgment debtor, but it belongs to the revision petitioners herein. Therefore, the revision petitioners invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India and are seeking remedy since the execution Court has committed an irregularity by way of passing attachment order against the property of the revision petitioners.

5. The very competent senior counsel for the petitioners has filed a typed set of papers and indicated the cause title of the decree, in which the revision petitioners' names are not indicated, as such the revision petitioners are not liable to pay any decree amount to the plaintiff as per the decree passed in the Special Suit No.119 of 2001, on the file of the civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, State of Maharashtra. The petitioners' house property situated at No.87, North Andar Street, Tiruchirappalli-620 002, has been attached for auction sale. The Court bailiff inspected the property and valued the same. Actually the decree has been passed against the Judgment debtor namely R.Srinivasan and not against the revision petitioners herein. The decree holder and the actual judgment debtor have colluded with each other and misconceived the execution proceedings against the revision petitioners herein, who are the third parties. Actually, the judgment debtor is not owner of the said house property. The revision petitioners' father R.Srinivasan was employed in the Defence Accounts Department, Government of India, who was retired on superannuation and who had expired on 10.11.1989. During his lifetime, he had not been involved in business especially textiles as alleged by the decree holder.

6. The highly competent senior counsel has submitted further that