ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed to restore the order of dismissal of E.P. No. 105 of 2004 in O.S. No. 623 of 1985 dated 10.10.2011 thereby, which was struck off later by the execution Court.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance in O.S. No. 623 of 1985. The suit was decreed and the respondent filed execution petition in LA. No. 105 of 2004 for executing the decree. Accordingly sale deed was executed in his favour and delivery has been ordered. When the Court Amin went to effect the delivery of possession, he reported that the property stands in the name of one Narayana Reddy, who is the father of the petitioner herein. Further it is stated that the description of the property is not tallied with the Court papers. Thereafter, the execution petition was posted for amendment of decree. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 2876 of 2009 before this Court. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed copy application in Diary Nos. 346 and 347 of 2014 seeking certified copy of diary extract, which were returned by order dated 10.01.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P. Nos. 1423 and 1424 of 2014 and thus by order dated 17.04.2014, directed the Principal Sub Court, Puducherry to comply with the copy application and issue certified copy within a period of 15 days.

3. On receipt of the diary extract, the petitioner found that on 10.10.2011, the Court Amin made an endorsement in E.P. No. 105 of 2004 as that the property stands in the name of Judgment debtor's father's name. Hence, the execution petition is dismissed at that stage. Thereafter, it was corrected as "for steps call on 03.11.2011. Notice to the respondent by 10.11.2011."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below originally dismissed the execution petition by an order dated 10.10.2011 and as such it is not permissible to strike off the order which has already been passed. It is also seen from the records that the execution petition was repeatedly adjourned for taking steps. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the execution proceedings and thereafter struck off the order and overwritten on the same, which is not permissible under law. He also produced the B diary extract and compared with A diary extract for the order dated 10.10.2011. Only because of the said order dated 10.10.2011, the petitioner was in bona fide impression that the execution proceedings was dismissed. Therefore, he withdrew the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 2876 of 2009 before this Court on 20.10.2011.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the description of the property mentioned in the suit schedule is not clear and the extent of the property completely differs and further the said property stands in the petitioner's father's name. Therefore, the Court Amin returned his warrant, issued to effect the delivery of possession on 18.10.2004. Even according to the Court Amin, the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent as far as the property comprised in CAD/399/129/01 ad measuring 1 Kani and 72 Kuzhes. Whereas the A register maintained by the VAO for the very same property mentioned as Cadestor No. 399pt R.S. No. 129/1, 129/2A. Therefore, the Court Amin could not effect the delivery of possession to the respondent and returned the warrant.

6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel, Ms. Chithra Sampath, submitted that the respondent filed the suit for specific performance in the year 1985. The suit was decreed in his favour and on the strength of decree he filed execution proceedings in E.P. No. 105 of 2004. Though sale deed was executed in his favour, he could not be able to take possession of the property for the past 16 years, from the date of order of execution. She further submitted that one way or other, the petitioner filed the Civil Revision Pe