ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioners to set aside the fair and executable order, dated 02.03.2022 in E.A.No.53 of 2021 in E.P.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munif, Vadipatti.

2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court below.

3.The petitioners have filed an application in E.A.No.53 of 2021 in E.P.No.27 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 97 & 99 of Civil Procedure Code to declare the properties in S.No.13/2 belonged to them on the basis that part of the E.P. schedule property was purchased by these petitioners on 17.12.2012. The vendor of the petitioners had purchased the property on 24.02.2000. The previous title holders were also in possession from 1954 and without impleading them, the present suit was filed.

4.Heard on either side. Perused the material documents available on record.

5.This Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a Judgment debtor and he has not been dispossessed and hence no locus standi or the petition is premature one, is incorrect and illegal. The Court below has failed to see that the suit and the decree obtained by the respondents are fraudulent one, as the original owner of the suit property sold out the same even in the year 1965 but suppressed the said fact the suit is filed and collusive decree is obtained against and support of the alleged lessee, and in execution petition trying to take possession of the petitioner's property, hence illegal. The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

6.To prove their claim the petitioners have filed documents from the year 1954.

7.All the Judgment discussed in the order of the Execution Court is to avoid false claim by way of obstruction. But, in this case the petitioners have filed documents to support their petition.

8.So, the Execution Court must decide the title of the objectors as claimed in the petition and only after deciding the title, it can proceed with the execution petition.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder relied upon the Judgment reported in 2021(2) MWN (Civil ) 578, Rahul S.Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Others, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the following guidelines:

42. All Courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below-

mentioned directions:

1. In suits relating to delivery of possession, the court must examine the parties to the suit under Order X in relation to third party interest and further exercise the power under Order XI Rule 14 asking parties to disclose and produce documents, upon oath, which are in possession of the parties including declaration pertaining to third party interest in such properties.

2. In appropriate cases, where the possession is not in dispute and not a question of fact for adjudication before the Court, the Court may appoint Commissioner to assess the accurate description and status of the property.

3. After examination of parties under Order X or production of documents under Order XI or receipt of commission report, the Court must add all necessary or proper parties to the suit, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and also make such joinder of cause of action in the same suit.

4. Under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC, a Court Receiver can be appointed to monitor the status of the property in question as custodia legis for proper adjudication of the matter.

5. The Court must, before passing the decree, pertaining to

6. delivery of possession of a property ensure that the decree is unambiguous so as to not only contain clear description of the property but also having regard to the status of the property.

7. In a money suit, the Court must invariably resort to Order XXI Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

8. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to