filing dates and events, would submit that this is a second attempt made by the revision petitioner to stall the execution proceedings by one way or the other. He was submitting that the suit in O.S.No.508 of 1990 was filed by one of the legal representatives of Antony Pitchai namely Chandra for permanent injunction in respect of new S.No.9/46. In that suit, in I.A.No.469 of 1990, E.P., proceedings in E.P.No.32 of 1988 was stayed. That suit was dismissed on 31.03.2000. Appeal filed in A.S.No. 24/2000 was dismissed by order dated 28.02.2001. S.A.No.945 of 2001 was preferred and the same was also dismissed on 20.06.2011. Before that E.A.No.147/1999 was again filed by Chandran and others, under Section 47 of C.P.C., in E.P.No.32 of 1988. As mentioned above E.P.No.32 of 1988 was dismissed for default by mistake. E.A.No.147 of 1999 was dismissed on 22.06.2001. Against which C.R.P.No.2758 of 2001 was preferred that was heard along with S.A.No.945 of 2001. As mentioned above it was also dismissed. Another attempt is made by filing suit in O.S.No.26 of 2013 on the file of Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, by Sudha and others for partition and that also came to be dismissed on 02.08.2019.
