JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Decreetal Order and Common Order dated 28.04.2017 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, in I.A.No.332 of 2016 in O.S.No.310 of 2015.)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the revision petitioners herein. The respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed a suit for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. The main prayer is to declare the Sale Deed dated 16.02.2012, which is registered as Document No.1089 of 2012 on the file of Sub Registrar, Suramangalam, is void ab-initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The defendants have entered appearance before the trial Court. They have also filed two Interlocutory Applications before the trial Court. I.A.No.332 of 2016 was filed by the revision petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint. The third defendant namely, K.M.Velusamy has also filed an application for same relief in I.A.No.206 of 2016. The plaintiffs in the suit have filed counter in the said Interlocutory Applications. After enquiry, both I.A.Nos.332 and 206 of 2016 were dismissed and hence, the defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

4. Initially, the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs had filed a suit in O.S.No.129 of 2013 before the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, for the relief of declaration to declare the Sale Deed dated 16.02.2012 registered as Document No.1089 of 2012 on the file of S.R.O. Suramangalam, is void ab-initio and not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction to protect the possession.

5. On a perusal of the certified copy of the order in I.A.No.117 of 2015, it is seen that as per the endorsement made by the Judicial Officer, the petition was not allowed as prayed for, as observed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, in his impugned order. It is only the petition was allowed and the parties were at liberty to work out their remedy as per law. In other words, there was no liberty either impliedly or expressively. Even as per the judgment in the main suit in O.S.No.129 of 2013, the certified copy clearly shows that the petition filed under Order 23 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed and the main suit was dismissed as withdrawn without costs and admittedly, as per the endorsement made by the Judicial Officer in the I.A. as well as in the judgment copy in the suit in O.S.No.129 of 2013 goes to show that there was no liberty either impliedly or expressively.

6. In view of the contents as per certified copy, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the finding rendered by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, in his order that as if the suit has been permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for, does not appears to be correct and it is factually wrong. The petition was not allowed as prayed for. It was wrongly mentioned by the learned trial Judge. Hence, I find that such a finding rendered by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, is ex facie error apparent on the face of the records.

7. After perusing the certified copy of the order in I.A.No.117 of 2015 filed under Order 23 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC and the judgment copy in O.S.No.129 of 2013, this Court is of the considered view that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn without costs. In other words, at the risk of repetition, however for the sake of clarity, it is to be noted that the suit was dismissed as withdrawn without liberty. Thereafter, there is no appeal or revision against that order and hence, the same has attain finality.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the second petitioner viz., K.Subramani died on 29.01.2020 and he has filed a