The executing court's jurisdiction is limited to the decree's terms, and third-party applications lacking legal standing cannot impede execution.

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

These Civil Revision Petitions challenge the orders passed by the learned X City Civil Court in EA (SR) No.45001/2023, EA (SR) No.13511/2023 and EA (SR) No.87529/2022 in E.P.No.90/2007 in O.S.No.7335/1996.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioners numbering 126 filed the applications in the Execution Petition. They wanted the following directions in

(i) E.A.SR.No.87529 of 2022 to implead them as party to E.P.No.90 of 2007

(ii) E.A.SR.No.13511 of 2023 to cancel the warrant of delivery issued by the Court on 06.02.2023 and

(iii) E.A.SR.No.45001 of 2003 is for stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.90 of 2007 in O.S.No.7335 of 1996 till the disposal of I.A.No.18979 of 2012 in O.S.No.7335 of 1996.

3. Heard Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the civil revision petitioners and Mr.P.Sidharthan, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The narration of the past history of the case is essential. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as third parties and decree holders.

5. The decree holders had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3823 of 1989, seeking a direction to the Police officials to secure their property from the trespass made by one, Mr.P.P.R.Hariharan and his accomplices. As a counter blast to this writ petition, Mr.P.P.R.Hariharan filed W.P.No.4112 of 1989, seeking issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Collector of Madras. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and taken up for disposal. By a common order dated 18.08.1989, both the writ petitions were dismissed. Liberty was granted to the parties to approach the Civil Court. A direction was given in the writ petition filed by the decree holders that the Police should not permit any further invasions by the trespassers into the property situated at Survey Nos.2,15,13 and 14 of Kolathur Village, Chennai District.

6. Subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petitions, suits came to be presented before the City Civil Court and before this Court. Mr.P.P.R.Hariharan presented O.S.No.500 of 1990, seeking permanent injunction, restraining the decree holders from interfering with his possession. He also filed O.S.No.1755 of 1990 for the very same relief. Both the suits came to be dismissed on 07.07.1997.

7. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in W.P.No.3823/1989, the decree holders had presented a suit for declaration of their title, permanent injunction, recovery of possession and for damages on the original side of this Court in C.S.No.475/1991.

8. On account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, this suit stood transferred to the file of that Court and was re- numbered as O.S.No.7335/1996. Summons were served on the defendants. Issues were framed and the suit was taken up for final disposal by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai. After recording the evidence of the 30^th decree holder, the suit came to be decreed as prayed for, on 13.04.2006.

9. During the course of discussion, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that the sale deeds executed by Mr.P.P.R.Hariharan in favour of the third parties as null and void.

10. Earlier to this suit, the plaintiffs in C.S.No.475 of 1991 had presented C.S.No.140 of 1990 for declaration and injunction. This suit too was transferred to the file of City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S.No.693 of 1990. The VII Assistant City Civil Judge, dealt with this suit. After being convinced that the decree holders having title to the property, the suit was decreed as prayed for on 25.10.200