5.The facts and circumstances, pointed above, this Court is of the opinion the trial has failed to consider the petition. This Court after considering the submissions made before this Court by the counsel representing the revision petitioner and the respondents and after going through the pleadings as find that the plaintiff has obtained the decree filed for specific performance in O.S.No.223 of 1996. Pursuant to the decree, sale deed has also been executed by the Court on behalf of the land owner on 22.02.2012. Thus, title has passed to the plaintiff. For taking delivery of possession steps have to be taken by the plaintiff. Admittedly, no order has been passed in E.A.No.38 of 2012 and the same is pending. The averment as found in the plaint is that on 30.05.2012, the revision petitioner herein, who is the owner of the northern side of the suit land, has attempted to trespass into the suit property and remove the boundary. Thus, in the plaint, the cause of action, it appears that the factum of possession of the suit property has to be decided in the course of trial and not supplementary.
