1. The civil revision petition has been preferred against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 31.01.2017, made in E.A.No.71 of 2016 in E.P.No.21 of 2010 in O.S.No.373 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

2. It is found that the respondent/plaintiff has levied the suit, in O.S.No.373 of 2008, against the petitioners/defendants for recovery of possession of the suit property. It is further found that the petitioners/defendants did not put forth any resistance to the above said suit laid by the respondent/plaintiff and accordingly, the suit laid by the respondent/plaintiff culminated in a decree as prayed for. Putting the decree in execution for the purpose of recovery of the property concerned, it is found that the respondent/plaintiff has levied the execution proceedings in E.P.No.21 of 2010.

3. It is also found that the petitioners/defendants, who had taken steps to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them, did not succeed in their attempt and the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by them, with reference to the same, had also come to be dismissed. This fact also had not been controverted by the petitioners/defendants. It is, therefore, seen that to the plaint averments raised by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit, no issue had been raised by the petitioners/defendants contesting the same.

4. While the execution petition initiated by the respondent/plaintiff to obtain the delivery of possession of the property concerned was pending, it is found that the petitioners/defendants have preferred an application, in E.A.No.71 of 2016, under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereunder, the petitioners/defendants have taken a plea that the suit property has not been properly identified by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit and according to them, even as per the averments contained in the plaint, the suit property had been encroached upon by the State Government to a considerable extent and as against the said encroachment, the respondent/plaintiff had not taken any concrete action as per the law and the respondent/plaintiff had also not clearly identified the property for which, he seeks recovery in the suit and further, according to the petitioners/defendants in respect of their property, they had laid a suit, in O.S.No.240 of 2011, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent/plaintiff and in the said suit, a Commissioner had been appointed and he had noted the physical features of the suit property and as per the report and plan of the Commissioner filed therein, it is stated that the portion of the respondent/plaintiff is only classified as the Government poromboke land and when the respondent/plaintiff has not clearly identified the property for which he had sought for possession and also not impleaded the Government as a party to the suit proceedings, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to lay any claim in the property of the petitioners/defendants under the guise of the decree obtained by him in his suit by giving incorrect boundaries and therefore, it is contended on their part that as disputes regarding the identity of the property are made out, the petitioners/defendants are necessitated to lay the application, under Section 47 C.P.C., on the ground that the decree obtained by the respondent/plaintiff has become in executable and hence, the execution petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the above said application preferred by the petitioners/defendants contending that the petitioners/defendants having failed to contest the case of the respondent/plaintiff in any manner and allowed the matter to go for ex parte and thereby the respondent/plaintiff having been granted a decree as prayed for, according to him, the petitioners/defendants are not entitled to throw any challenge to the decree as such and thus, according to him, the present application preferred by the petitioners/def