In execution proceedings, the validity of a will must be properly established, as failing to prove essential documents compromises a party's legal standing.

ORDER

Challenge has been made to the order rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, the present revision has been filed by the unsuccessful judgment debtor.

2. This revision has a chequered history as under:-

2.a. The suit in O.S.No.193 of 1996 has been filed originally by R.Murugesan represented by his power agent S.Subramaniam as against 163 defendants for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The suit was filed contending inter-alia that the land was originally allotted to the plaintiff under the III 5 year plan, a scheme sponsored by the Central Government through the State Government for the permanent settlement of the landless agricultural labourers in specified villages. Accordingly, the suit property to an extent of 4.52 acres have been assigned to the plaintiff and the defendants are encroachers of the area. The suit has been decreed on 17.07.1997 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition in EP.No.91 of 1997 for delivery of possession. Subsequently, during the pendency of the execution petition, the plaintiff died on 24.06.2014, the respondents herein has come on record by the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.21 of 2015 in the above EP by order dated 28.03.2016 based on the registered will said to have been executed by the plaintiff dated 17.05.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners were set exparte in the execution proceedings on 02.12.1997 and in the meanwhile, the respondents herein has filed an application in E.A.No.8 of 2017 seeking police protection to execute the decree and the said application was allowed on 07.02.2017.

2.b. Aggrieved by the exparte order dated 02.12.1997, the revision petitioners have filed an application in E.A.No.14 of 2017 to condone the delay of 6981 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree. Similarly, they have also filed an un-numbered E.A in R.No.2432 of 2017 under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the order passed by the Court is unsustainable in law. The Executing Court below dismissed the application in E.A.No.14 of 2017 and the un-numbered application under Section 47 of CPC by orders dated 26.04.2017 and 08.06.2017 respectively. Challenging the dismissal of the applications and granting police protection, revisions have been filed before this Court in CRP(NPS).Nos.1757, 1941 & 2673 of 2017. This Court by common order dated 09.10.2017 dismissed the revisions filed challenging the dismissal of application filed to condone the delay of 6981 days in filing petition to set aside the exparte order, whereas, allowed the revisions filed challenging the dismissal of unnumbered Section 47 application and granting police protection. This Court while allowing the revision by setting aside the police protection has granted liberty to the respondents to file fresh application, if necessary. Further, while allowing the revision setting aside the order of the Executing Court dismissing the unnumbered Section 47 application had remanded the matter back to the Executing Court to number the application and determine the question raised by the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunities to the parties concerned.

2.c. Based on such direction, the Executing Court had taken out Section 47 application in E.A.No.75 of 2017. In Section 47 application, it is the contention of the revision petitioners that the property is a Government land and pattas have been issued to the revision petitioner, further, the respondents 1 and 2 have come on record based on the fabricated will said to ha