ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.68 of 2018 in O.S.No.89 of 1978 dated 15.09.2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, ordering arrest and detention of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in the civil prison and for removal of temporary construction made in the B schedule property and for handing over the vacant possession of the same.

2. Originally, the respondent's father Naina Mohamed has filed the above suit claiming the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, that the revision petitioner's father Ayyavoo Pandithan has filed his written statement defending the suit and that the learned District Munsif, after full trial, has decreed the suit vide judgment dated 03.05.1980 declaring that the plaintiff Naina Mohamed is entitled to the suit property measuring 22 feet East-West and 23 feet 3 inches North-South and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant Ayyavoo Pandithan and his men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said property. The revision petitioner's father Ayyavoo Pandithan has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.216 of 1980 and the same was also dismissed.

3. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner's father Ayyavoo Pandithan has filed an another suit in O.S.No.553 of 1988 against the respondent's father Naina Mohamed with respect to the same property shown in O.S.No.89 of 1978, that the suit in O.S.No.553 of 1988 was dismissed and that the appeal and the second appeal at the instance of the revision petitioner's father Ayyavoo Pandithan were also dismissed.

4. Pending proceedings, the plaintiff Naina Mohamed and the defendant Ayyavoo Pandithan had died. The respondent-son of the plaintiff/decree holder, by alleging that the revision petitioner, after death of his father, had disrespected the decision of the Court by putting a temporary thatched shed in the vacant site of the B schedule property on 27.03.2007 and that since the revision petitioner is working as a Special Sub Inspector of Police in Tallakulam Police Station at that time, the police complaints lodged by the respondent were of no avail, has laid the execution petition seeking orders to punish the revision petitioner for his willful disobedience of the decision of the Court by arrest and detention in the civil prison and also for removal of the thatched shed put up by the revision petitioner in the B schedule property and for handing over the vacant possession of the same. The revision petitioner has filed a counter affidavit raising objections that the execution petition filed on 21.06.2018 is clearly barred by limitation as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act, that two earlier execution petitions were already dismissed, that the other legal heir of the judgment debtor-sister of the revision petitioner has not been impleaded and that the decree holder's another son and daughters were not impleaded and as such, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned District Munsif, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order granting the reliefs claimed vide order dated 15.09.2023.

Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed.

5. As rightly observed by the learned District Munsif, the other two earlier execution petitions were filed only for recovery of cost and not for the reliefs claimed in the present execution petition. Moreover, there is absolutely no bar or prohibition for filing execution petitions within the period of limitation, if any prescribed by the Limitation Act and the decree holder can file any number of execution petitions, within the period of limitation, if any, till the termination of the execution proceedings.

6. Regarding the non-impleadment of the judgment debtor's other legal heir i.e., sister of the revision petitioner, the learned District Munsif, taking note of the admission made by the revision petitioner himself that he alone had put up