ORDER

The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners requested to hear the review application on merits, since delivery of property was ordered in C.R.P. (MD)No.1897 of 2023 against the review applicants, wherein the review applicants were directed to hand over the possession on 15.11.2024. Hence, the review application is heard on merits.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioners are the Review Applicants. The case between the review applicants and the respondents have chequered history and the same is narrated in the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.1897 of 2023, which is sought to be reviewed. The cases/issues between the parties had seen several Courts and all the Courts unanimously held against the review applicants especially, in CRP(MD)No. 2275 of 2011 and W.P.(MD)No.14899 of 2022, CRP(MD)No.81 of 2023 and of course, the impugned order in C.R.P.(MD)No.1897 of 2023 as well. All the Courts had directed the review applicants to hand over the possession to the respondents. But till date, the review applicants failed to hand over possession. Infact, this Court of the considered opinion that the review applicants had committed contempt of Court by not obeying the orders of the Court.

3. Further, whenever the Courts have passed orders, the review applicants have the tendency to file the review applications or applications to modify the order so that the review applicants can drag on the proceedings and further, the respondents cannot implement the orders of the Courts. Infact, the review applicants had filed a petition to modify the order against the order passed in CRP(MD)No.2275 of 2011, review application against the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.14899 of 2022. Now, the present review application is filed against the order passed in C.R.P.(MD)No. 1897 of 2023. It is pertinent to state that the review applicants had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case was dismissed.

4. Since the review applicants are having two shares in the disputed property, they are litigating the cases, but declining the rights of other three shares to the sons or eight shares of other co-sharers namely the daughters and sons’ shares. It is in this background the review application is heard on merits.

5. The contention of the review applicants is that in the review application filed in R.A.(MD)No.77 of 2022 against W.P.(MD)No.14899 of 2022, the Court had granted liberty to raise the issue in E.P., hence, the issue was raised in E.P. Since there is no suppression, hence, the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed in C.R.P(MD)No. 1897 of 2023 is not warranted. It is seen that the only contention in all the aforesaid litigations is that the review applicants are having two shares which they had purchased from two sons of the respondent T.D.Kathiresan and hence, they are entitled to possession of the “entire property” against the other co-owners.

6. In C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2275 of 2011 it has been clearly held that the review applicants had suffered as decree in O.S.No.10 of 2007 (this suit is filed by the review applicants) for eviction, that too a compromise decree. Thereafter the review applicants had purchased the undivided interest from the two coparceners and the property being undivided the tenant cannot claim to be in possession of the entire property and cannot claim the decree had become inexecutable. Against which SLP is preferred and the same was dismissed, after suffering dismissal again filed petition to recall the order passed in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2275 of 2011. Then the review applicants had preferred W.P.(MD)No.14899 of 2022 raising the same contention, the same was dismissed, then review application in R.A.(MD)No.77 of 2022 was filed wherein a liberty was granted to “challenge the execution proceedings independently on any legal grounds, if it is available to him”. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Court had granted liberty to raise if the party is having legal ground, which is only qualified liberty. But alrea