ORDER :

The revision is directed against the order, dated 24.07.2019 passed in E.A.No.32 of 2018 in E.P.No.145 of 2015 in O.S.No.202 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul permitting the impleadment of third party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder and he filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 27.03.2000, that the trial Court has decreed the suit and that the first Appellate Court and the second Appellate Court have dismissed the appeals and thereby, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court. The decree holder has then laid the execution proceeding in E.P.No. 40 of 2011 and got the sale deed executed from the Court and that thereafter, he has filed the petition in E.P.No.145 of 2015 seeking delivery of the property as per the sale deed executed in his favour. When the said execution petition in E.P.No. 145 of 2015 was pending, the third party/first respondent herein has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking his impleadment as the respondent in the execution petition. The learned Subordinate Judge, after enquiry has passed the impugned order allowing the impleading petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the decree holder has come forward with the present revision.

3. The third party/proposed respondent, claiming to be the cultivating tenant of the suit property, by alleging that the decree holder by suppressing his status as a cultivating tenant, is attempting to take delivery unlawfully, has sought for his impleadment. It is pertinent to note that Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is applicable to the suits only and the same is not applicable to the execution proceeding. Aggrieved persons if any will have to proceed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of this Court, passed in CRP(NPD).No. 1321 of 2016, dated 15.07.2016 in the case of N. Manivannan Vs. M.S.Sivakumar, whereunder this Court has held that a third party cannot be impleaded in the execution proceedings. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder;

“4. On a perusal of the report of the Bailiff, it could be seen that he has not mentioned about the proposed parties and he has filed his report stating that the boundaries of the property was not correctly mentioned in the warrant. Except saying that the boundaries are incorrectly stated in the delivery warrant, the Bailiff has not whispered a single word about the proposed parties in his report. When the decree was passed as against the respondents 3 and 4 herein, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot get themselves impleaded in the Execution Petition. The application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.

6. .... If the proposed parties are in possession of the suit property, they could have filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code and not under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Having filed a suit in O.S.No.96 of 2012 to declare the execution proceedings in E.P.No.112 of 2012 as null and void, the Execution Court ought not to have allowed the application and impleaded the proposed parties as respondents in the execution proceedings.”

4. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the application filed by the first respondent under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to implead him in the execution proceedings is legally not maintainable and as such, this application is liable to be dismissed. But that is not the end of the matter. The learned Subordinate Judge, after recording the rival contentions, by simply observing that the actual situation will be known only at the enquiry, allowed the petition.

5. The decree holder has taken a specific defence that after the dismissal of the Second Appeal by this Court confirming the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Cou