ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.A.No.23 of 2019 in I.A.No.703 (A) of 2012 in O.S.No.263 of 2012, dated 23.09.2019, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Palani, dismissing the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.The revision petitioner is the petitioner in the interlocutory application and a third party to the suit proceedings. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.263 of 2012, against the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 and one D.Rajendran, claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants from damaging the north-south wall situated on the western side of the plaintiff's house and from making any temporary or permanent constructions therein.

3.The plaintiff has also filed an application in I.A.No.572 of 2012, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming temporary injunction and obtained interim orders, dated 14.09.2012. During the subsistence of the interim order, since the defendants have violated the interim orders passed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff has filed a petition in I.A.No.703(A) of 2012, under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure to punish the defendants for disobeying the orders of the Court by attachment of their property and by arresting them and committal to the Civil Prison. 4.It is not in dispute that the learned District Munsif has passed an order in I.A.No.703 (A) of 2012, dated 10.04.2017 for settlement of proclamation. It is also not in dispute that subsequently attached property was sold in Court auction and that one Sukumar had purchased the property in Court auction sale held on 09.08.2017.

5.It is also not in dispute that sale was confirmed on 12.10.2017 and sale certificate was issued to the Court auction purchaser Sukumar on

28.09.2018.

6.The revision petitioner, who is none other than the Court auction purchaser Sukumar's sister's daughter, claiming title to the said property on the basis of Will, dated 27.01.2018, alleged to have been executed by the said Sukumar, who died subsequently on 26.08.2018, has filed the above application under Order 21 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission for filing the execution petition to take possession of the property purchased in Court auction.

7.The learned District Munsif, Palani, after enquiry has passed the impugned order, dated 23.09.2019, dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner in E.A.No.23 of 2019 has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

8.It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff alone has filed the counter statement and contested the said petition in E.A.No.23 of 2019, whereas, the defendants 1 and 2 have neither filed any counter statement nor raised any objection. The objections raised by the plaintiff are two fold. The first objection is that the revision petitioner has not chosen to prove the alleged will as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and Indian Succession Act, that the revision petitioner in collusion with the defendants 1 and 2 has filed the above petition, that the will, dated 27.01.2018, which is an unregistered one, is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that therefore the above petition only on the basis of the will, dated 27.01.2018,which was also not proved, is legally not maintainable. As rightly observed by the learned District Munsif, though the first defendant has taken a stand that the will was not proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, he is a third party, so far the petition mentioned property is concerned and that since he has no connection whatever with this property, is not entitled to raise any objection with respect to the will.

9.Now coming to the main objection of the plaintiff, that the above petition, as per Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act is hopelessly barred by limitation. Article 134 of the Limitation Act contemplates the period