The executing court must adhere to the terms of the decree and cannot dismiss the execution petition based on claims already rejected by the Civil Court. An ex parte order passed by another court after the decree obtained by the petitioner cannot be a basis for dismissing the execution petition.

1. The revision petitioner / plaintiff laid a suit, in O.S.No.85 of 2000, for the reliefs of declaration and possession against the respondents / defendants. A perusal of the plaint would go to show that the revision petitioner has put up a case that she is the owner of the suit property and the respondents are the tenants in respect of the suit property and inasmuch as the respondents had not been paying the lease as agreed to and also attempting to set up title to the suit property on themselves, according to the revision petitioner, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate reliefs.

2. It is found that the suit has ended in favour of the revision petitioner on 28.03.2002. Against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.85 of 2000, it is found that the respondents preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.114 of 2002 and the same, after contest, had been dismissed on 26.07.2004.

3. Pursuant to the same, it is found that the revision petitioner had preferred E.P.No.18 of 2005 seeking for recovery of possession of the suit property. The respondents filed their counter in the execution proceedings contending that their names had been recorded as the cultivating tenants by the proceedings of the Record Officer and Tahsildar, Manamadurai and in such view of the matter, the Executing Court cannot order the delivery of possession pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.85 of 2000 and confirmed in A.S.No.114 of 2002. The said contention of the respondents being accepted by the Executing Court, it is found that the execution petition laid by the revision petitioner had come to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the civil revision petition has been preferred.

4. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner it is found that the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as per its terms and cannot go beyond the terms. However, it is found that the Executing Court has rejected the execution petition on the footing that the name of the respondents had been recorded as cultivating tenants in the revenue records and therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to seek for possession of the suit property pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court.

5. However, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that when the respondents had not paid the lease amount and also disputed the title of the revision petitioner to the suit property, it is found that on that basis, the revision petitioner had laid the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2000, accordingly, she had been granted the decree by the Civil Court, which has also been confirmed by the Appellate Court. In such view of the matter, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise the same issue again before the Executing Court to thwart the decree obtained by the revision petitioner in the Civil Court.

6. Further, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the proceedings of the Record Officer and Tahsildar, Manamadurai, recording the name of the respondents as cultivating tenants had come to be passed only on 16.07.2004 much later to the decree passed in O.S.No.85 of 2000. It is found that the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.85 of 2000 were passed on 28.03.2002. Further, it is also found that the order passed by the Revenue Court is an ex parte order without proper notice to the revision petitioner. In addition to that when it is found that the contentions put forth by the respondents for resisting the revision petitioner's civil action were already rejected by the Civil Court, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the same contentions again before the Executing Court on the guise of the ex parte order and thereby stall the execution proceedings one way or the other without any basis.

7. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the respondents having disputed the title of the revision petitioner in respec