COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the the docket order dated 07.04.2022 made in E.A.CFR.No.7718 of 2022 and E.A.CFR.No.7719 of 2022 respectively in E.P.No.233 of 2021 in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

2. The petitioner is an Obstructor /third party in E.A.CFR.No.7718 of 2022 in E.P.No.233 of 2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though he had filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Section 151 C.P.C and despite the petition being maintainable, the Executing Court, by a Docket Order dated 07.04.2022 in E.A.CFR.No.7718 of 2022, returned the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petition No.1312 of

2022.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court, without hearing the petitioner on the question of maintainability, had repeatedly returned the petition without numbering the same. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to convince the Court with regard to the maintainability of the petition. He would only seek that a direction may be issued to the Executing Court to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits regarding the maintainability and then number, the petition.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioner, who has no right over the property, has attempted to scuttle the process of execution by filing a vexatious petition. The first respondent is the decree holder in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, seeking eviction of tenants. The petitioner, who is a stranger to the proceedings, filed the petition in violation of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2005 and he has been filing the petitions one after another to prolong the case. He would submit that in the event of the Court remitting the matter to the Executing Court and the petitioner being allowed to argue on the question of maintainability, the first respondent should also be given an opportunity to put forthwith his case. He would also submit that the petitioner had earlier during trial filed an impleading application in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2005, and it had been dismissed. Till date, the petitioner has not challenged the order of dismissal and he has once again at the Execution stage sought to implead him.

5. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. A perusal of the docket orders would show that the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore had returned the petition on 01.04.2022 for the following reasons.

Fair and final orders passed on 06.09.2021, this petition is purely a landlord and tenant dispute title cannot be decided in the E.P.

If the petitioner / 3rd party have any right over the property, they can agitate by way of suit in O.S.No.265 of

2022.

Hence returned.

Thereafter, again on 06.04.2022, the petitioner represented the petition stating the following reasons:

1. O.S.No.265/2022 is being filed challenging the fair and final order passed in R.C.O.P.No.87 of 2005. This E.P is filed on the basis of the said order. Hence, the 3rd party Obstructer is entitled to file this petition.

2. This petition is filed well within the provision had maintainable.

Subsequently, on 07.04.2022, the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, returned the petition, stating “previous return still holds good. Hence returned”.

7. Both the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner and the

1st respondent are the contesting parties and respondents 2 and 3 herein are not necessary parties to the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 2 and 3 have already vacated the premises and thereby respondents 2 and 3 are given up. 8. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The Rent Controller shall take up E.A.CFR.No.7718 of 2022 on file and hear the