Skip to content


Rajamoni Nadar Vs. Selvaraja - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R.P(NPD)(MD)No. 2211 of 2016 & C.M.P(MD)No. 10251 of 2016
Judge
AppellantRajamoni Nadar
RespondentSelvaraja
Excerpt:
.....and the same is pending. the petitioner has not obtained any interim order pending the above said appeal suit. the trial court has rightly dismissed the said application. hence the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. according to the petitioner, the trial court has passed an order in e.p.no.110 of 2014 on 25.7.2016 wherein the court below has recorded the statement of both the counsels appearing for the parties concerned. but factually, the above said facts are not correct for the reason that as per the petition and order, it is stated as no representation on the side of the revision petitioner. it has also recorded in the said order that it is assumed that the respondent has no say in the matter and therefore taken as heard and posted for orders on 25.7.2016. by.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order made in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.91 of 2003, dated 25.7.2016, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.)

1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order made in E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.91 of 2003, dated 25.7.2016, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.91 of 2003, on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Nagercoil against the revision Petitioner for realization of a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- with interest and costs. On 12.3.2007, the suit was decreed with costs and the revision petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,45, 680/- to the respondent. Against the said decree and judgement, the revision petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Court, Kanyakumari District as informa Pauperis in P.O.P.No.106 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 6.6.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has filed an appeal in A.S.No.61 of 2014 before the District and Sessions Judge at Nagercoil and the same is pending. The revision petitioner herein neither paid the decree amount nor deposited the same. In the mean time, the respondent filed an execution petition in E.P.No.110 of 2014 before the I Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil. In the said execution petition, the learned I Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil passed an order of attachment and sale of the schedule mentioned property. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision Petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, he would submit that it is an admitted fact that the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent herein and the petitioner has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.61 of 2014 before the District and Sessions Judge at Nagercoil and the same is pending. The Petitioner has not obtained any interim order pending the above said appeal suit. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. According to the Petitioner, the trial Court has passed an order in E.P.No.110 of 2014 on 25.7.2016 wherein the court below has recorded the statement of both the counsels appearing for the parties concerned. But factually, the above said facts are not correct for the reason that as per the petition and order, it is stated as no representation on the side of the revision petitioner. It has also recorded in the said order that it is assumed that the respondent has no say in the matter and therefore taken as heard and posted for orders on 25.7.2016. By relying upon the said Petition and order , the learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly submit that no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to put-forth his case at the time of passing of order in the execution petition. Therefore opportunity shall be given to the revision petitioner to make his valid objections in the above E.P.

5. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not obtained any interim, order in the appeal suit. The Petitioner has disputed the orders passed in the execution petition. The counsel for the revision petitioner was not present on that day and no submission made on the said date I.e., on 18.7.2016, on which date, the trial Court has passed orders. The said fact is a disputed fact and hence this Court cannot entertain the present Civil Revision Petition. It is an admitted fact that the appeal suit itself is posted for final disposal. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner instead of approaching the same Court, this Court, in the interest of justice,can take into consideration the hardship caused to the Petitioner and pass appropriate interim orders for depositing a reasonable amount as directed by this Court, pending the appeal suit.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent objected that there shall not be any interim order to be passed pending disposal of the appeal suit by this Court because the petitioner has not chosen to obtain any interim order pending the appeal suit. The learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that if the petitioner is willing to deposit any reasonable execution petition amount, this Court may consider the same, pending disposal of the appeal suit. Therefore in the interest of justice, I am inclined to pass the following order:

1. There shall be an order of interim stay on condition that the Petitioner shall deposit 50% of the E.P amount to the credit of E.P.No.110 of 2014 in O.S.No.91 of 2003, on the file of the First Additional Sub-Court, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which interim stay granted by this Court shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to this Court.

2. In the event of above said order has been complied with by the Petitioner, the appellate Court is directed to dispose the appeal suit in A.S.N o.61 of 2014 on its file within a period of four months thereafter.

7. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //