The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order XXI Rule 15 of CPC and the obligation of the court to protect the interests of decree holders who have not joined in the execution.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decreetal orders passed in E.A.No.1 of 2014 in E.P.No.2 of 2012 in O.S.No.131 of 1999 dated 05.01.2017 on the file of the Court of District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai.)

1. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.131 of 1999, now pending in execution stage before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Panrangipettai is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The first and fourth plaintiffs have unfortunately died. The second and third plaintiffs alone have survived the litigation. A decree was passed on 27.10.2006 granting declaration of title with respect to suit properties in favour of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs and granting recovery of possession. Subsequently, E.P.No.2 of 2012 had been filed seeking to put into effect the decree. The second plaintiff Vasudevan filed E.P in his own name. The third defendant, had then filed E.A.No.1 of 2014 in E.P.No.2 of 2012 under Section 47 of C.P.C., stating that though the decree was in favour of the second, third and fourth defendants, the Execution petition has been filed only by the second plaintiff and therefore it is not legally maintainable and has to be dismissed. It had been stated that the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff has also not been brought on record.

3. A counter had been filed stating that the contentions raised do not require consideration and that the said petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed.

4. The application came up for consideration before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai, who by an order dated 05.01.2017 dismissed the said application. In the order, it had been held that the issue raised would not come under the ambit of Section 47 CPC since the said provision related to questions arising between the parties to the suit and the issue relating to whether one decree holder can maintain the E.P., would not be an issue arising between the parties. The application was therefore dismissed.

5. Heard Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.G.Sumithra, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner had widened the scope of arguments by bringing into consideration Order XXI Rule 15 of CPC. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that in the E.P., the respondent had referred in all material places to himself only by singular and thereafter in the original records, the name of the other decree holder had been included and it is urged that interpolation or addition of the name requires to be examined since it amounts to tampering of Court orders.

7. Detailed arguments were advanced by Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.G.Sumithra, learned counsel for the respondent however contended that even if the fact that one of the decree holder has filed E.P., is taken into consideration as being an irregularity, it would not vitiate further proceedings in the E.P., which could still be maintained and such irregularity is curable in nature. The learned counsel stated that the issue whether there have been interpolation in the Court records would be an issue which can be examined only by that particular Court namely the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court. It was contended that the E.P. has been lawfully filed, correctly taken on record and proceeded with and on this narrow ground, further proceedings in the E.P should not be curtailed by this Court.

8. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced. he Court also had the benefit of examining the records. As a fact only one of the decree holder has filed Execution petition.

9. Order 21 Rule 15 is as follows;

"15. Application for execution by Joint decreeholders.—( 1) Where a decree has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one, any one or more of such persons may, unless the decree imposes any condition to the contrary, apply for the execution of