Madras High Court
T.Pushpam vs V.Ramamoorthy .. 1St on 2 December, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.4484 & 9765 of 2021
Thirali Konar (Died) .. Nil/1st Respondent/1st Respondent/
Judgment Debtor-Defendant
1.T.Pushpam
2.T.Kumaresan
3.T.Ramamoorthy .. Petitioners 1 to 3/Respondents 2 to 4/
Respondents 2 to 4/3rd Parties
T.Rajendran (Died)
T.Radha (Died) .. Nil/Respondents 5 & 6/
Respondents 5 & 6/3rd Parties
[Cause title accepted vide order dated 08.02.2021 made in
CMP(MD) No.7038/2020 in CRP(MD) SR No.47428 of 2020]
4.R.Dhanalakshmi
5.R.Viji
6.R.Vasanthakumar
7.R.Vasanthadevi .. Petitioners 4 to 7 (LRs of deceased
T.Rajendran)/3rd Parties/3rd Parties/3rd Parties
-vs-
1.V.Ramamoorthy .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner/
Decree holder-Plaintiff
2.S.Rajendran .. 2nd Respondent
[R2 - impleaded vide order dated 10.11.2021 made in
CMP(MD) No.3773 of 2021 in CRP(MD) SR No.47428 of 2020)
_________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to set
aside the petition and order dated 25.07.2019, passed in E.A.No.98 of
2018 in E.P.No.83 of 2013 in O.S.No.777 of 2012 on the file of the
Principal Sub Court, Madurai District.
For Petitioners : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
For R2 : Mr.S.Arivalagan
******
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated
25.07.2019, passed in E.A.No.98 of 2018 in E.P.No.83 of 2013 in
O.S.No.777 of 2012 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
2.The judgment debtor – defendant is the revision petitioner before
this Court.
3.The 1st respondent/decree holder – plaintiff had filed the suit in
O.S.No.777/2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurai,
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
against the defendant Thirali Konar for specific performance of an
agreement of sale dated 01.06.2011. The said suit was decreed ex-parte
and an ex-parte judgment came to be passed on 21.12.2012. Thereafter,
the decree holder viz., the 1st respondent herein had filed E.P.No.83 of
2013 for a direction to the defendant to execute the Sale Deed after
receiving the balance sale consideration. The defendant had entered
appearance in the execution proceedings and pending proceedings, the
defendant had passed away and his legal representatives, the petitioners
herein, were brought on record.
4.By an order dated 07.10.2016, the execution petition was ordered
and the Sale Deed was registered on 29.06.2017. Thereafter, the decree
holder, the plaintiff had filed E.A.No.98 of 2018 seeking delivery of the
suit property to him in the execution proceedings. In the said
application, the notice sent to the petitioners herein was returned with an
endorsement “refused” and therefore, the executing court had deemed
service to have been completed upon the petitioners herein and they were
called absent and set ex-parte by order dated 10.12.2018. On the very
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
same day, delivery was also ordered. Thereafter, by order dated
19.03.2019, a petition seeking police help and break open was ordered
and ultimately, the property was delivered and a delivery muchalika was
recorded by order dated 25.07.2019, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the present revision.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
6.Admittedly, the petitioners before this Court have not challenged
the decree for specific performance and the same has attained finality.
The only argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners
is that the plaintiff has not sought for a decree for possession and
therefore, the order delivering the property was without jurisdiction. The
petitioners have not challenged the decree and also the order directing
delivery of the property and the only order that is sought to be challenged
is recording of the delivery. As stated above, the decree has not been
challenged.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
7.In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground for setting
aside the order dated 25.07.2019 in E.A.No.98 of 2018 in E.P.No.83 of
2013 in O.S.No.777 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge,
Madurai, and the same is confirmed. Consequently, the Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
8.In the light of the orders passed in C.R.P.(MD) No.836 of 2021,
nothing survives for consideration in the vacate stay petition and
C.M.P.(MD) No.9765 of 2021 is dismissed, accordingly. Consequently,
C.M.P.(MD) No.4484 of 2021 is closed.
02.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
To
The Principal Subordinate Court,
Madurai District.
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.836 of 2021
Dated: 02.12.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
