ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the appellants in C.M.A. No. 9 of 2019 questioning the judgment dated 20.08.2019 passed by st the 1 Additional District Court, Tiruvallur dismissing the appeal.

st

2. The 1 respondent herein had filed O.S. No. 6871 of 1990 before the VII Assistant City Civil Court against the revision petitioners seeking a judgment and decree in the nature of a declaration that respondent/plaintiff has got a right to access her site through the Inner Ring Road, and for permanent injunction restraining from putting up any construction and committing trespass, and for mandatory injunction to remove illegal construction put up. Two of the defendants died pending the th nd proceedings and the 8 defendant has been shown as the 2 respondent herein.

st

3. It is the case of the 1 respondent herein in O.S. No. 6871 of

1990, that she had purchased a house site mezsuring 5 ½ cents bearing plot no. 13 in S. No. 57/1 part in Koyambedu Village, Nungambakkam Egmore nd Taluk, Chennai, by a registered sale deed dated 14.12.1987 from the 2 th respondent/8 defendant. The revision petitioners/defendants had also purchased adjoining plots of land. It was claimed that the revision petitioners/defendants had, unauthorisedly put up a 10 feet wall and had also laid foundation for construction of building encroaching into the road, st thereby obstructing the 1 respondent/plaintiff from having free access to her house site.

4. The defendants entered appearance in the suit through Counsels. They did not file written statement. They were set exparte and an st exparte decree was also passed on 13.01.1991. The 1 respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A9 were also marked.

5. The revision petitioners/defendants filed I.A. No. 1981 of 1992 to set aside the exparte decree. That was dismissed after 4 years for non prosecution on 30.10.1996.

6. The revision petitioners/defendants, after 15 further years, filed I.A. No. 15576 of 2011 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 5231 days to restore I.A. No. 1981 of 1992. That application was dismissed after 1 further year on 22.11.2012.

7. The revision petitioners/defendants then filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 4485 of 2012. That was also dismissed after 1 year on 26.11.2013.

st

8. The 1 respondent/plaintiff had filed E.P. No. 1071 of 2007 seeking civil arrest for revision petitioners/defendants for disobeying the directions in the judgment in the suit by violating the grant of permanent injunction by putting up a hut in the road.

9. The revision petitioners/defendants/judgment debtors then shifted their residence to Tiruvallur District.

st

10. The 1 respondent/plaintiff/decree holder then obtained orders to transmit E.P. No. 1071 of 2007, to the jurisdictional District Munsif Court at Tiruvallur. It was transmitted and renumbered as E.P. No. 7 of

2011.

11. After entering appearance in E.P. No. 7 of 2011, the revision petitioners/judgment debtors filed E.A. No. 19 of 2012 u/s 47 of CPC, questioning executability of the decree in O.S. No. 6871 of 1990. After 6 years, E.A. No. 19 of 2012 was dismissed for non prosecution on 31.08.206.

12. The revision petitioners/judgments debtors then filed E.A. No.

18 of 2016 to set aside that dismissal order. The said application was allowed after 1 year on 12.04.2017 and E.A. No. 19 of 2012 was restored on file.

13. Again the revision petitioners/judgment debtors did not prosecute E.A. No. 19 of 2012, and it was again dismissed for non prosecution after 1 further year on 12.06.2018.

14. The revision petitioners/judgment debtors then filed E.A. No.

67 of 2018 to restore E.P. No. 19 of 2012. This application was dismissed by order dated 16.08.2018. The District Munsif, Tiruvallur, then took up E.P. No. 7 of 2011 and after examining the records, reserved the same for passing orders.

15. The revision petitioners/judgment debtors then filed E.A. No.

97 of 2018 to re-open the Execution Petition for hearing their arguments.

That application was allowe