The revision petitioner has the right to execute the decree unless it is inexecutable, passed by a court without jurisdiction, or otherwise satisfied. The procedure set out in Order 21 Rule 2 of CPC must be complied with for any adjustment of the decree.

1. The revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 42 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, for directing the defendant, to execute a cancellation deed, cancelling the sale deed dated 15.05.2006. The suit was decreed as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 15.07.2009. Questioning the same, the respondent herein filed A.S. No. 261 of 2009 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The learned Appellate Judge took note of the sequence of events. The plaintiff had entered into a mortgage deed transaction with the family of the defendants. Even-though, the plaintiff claims that what was executed by her on 15.05.2006 was only a mortgage and not as a sale deed, it has been admitted by the plaintiff that the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 95,000/- and only thereafter obtained the signature of the plaintiff. In view of this submission made by the plaintiff, the decree passed by the trial Court was modified and a direction was given to the defendant to execute the cancellation deed, cancelling the sale deed dated 15.05.2006 upon repayment of sum of Rs. 95,000/- by the plaintiff. It was submitted before the Appellate Court that the said sum had already been deposited by the plaintiff. There upon the defendant was given liberty to withdraw the said amount, on execution of the cancellation deed.

2. The judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010 made in A.S. No. 261 of 2009 was questioned in S.L.P. No. 15428 of 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 04.01.2011, dismissed the S.L.P. by observing that they did not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the High Court. The respondent herein applied for review of the said order dated 04.01.2011. But the review was also dismissed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that they have gone through the review petition and the connected papers. Since, the decree made in favour of the revision petitioner attained finality, right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court, E.P. No. 32 of 2011 was filed before the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. The execution of the decree was opposed by the respondent herein by filing a counter. The respondent took the stand that on 18.02.2011, the plaintiff/decree holder had executed a sale deed, conveying the property in question in favour of his wife Jemi. Both the parties entered into the witness box and marked the documents. The Executing Court by order dated 11.02.2016 held that in view of the execution of the sale deed dated 18.02.2011, the decree holder has no right whatsoever over the suit property and therefore the execution petition is liable to be dismissed. This order is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is to be sustained for more reasons than one. His first contention is that the revision petitioner has not chosen to challenge the sale deed executed by him in favour of the wife of the respondent on 18.02.2011. His second contention is that on the date of filing of the E.P. the revision petitioner has no subsisting interest whatsoever, in respect of the suit property and that therefore the Court below rightly dismissed the E.P. as not maintainable. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Jugalkishore Saraf vs. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd. 1955 (1) SCR 1369 in this regard. He contended that CPC is only a procedural law and therefore when the occasion demands it must yield to the substantive law enshrined in the Transfer of Property Act. He finally contended that the decree holder had approached the Executing Court with unclean hands. She had deliberately suppressed the factum of execution of sale deed dated 18.02.2011. A person approaching the Court must be non-suited at the very threshold, as held in the decision, reporte