Madras High Court
K.Venkatappa vs Venkataramiah on 2 February, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
and
MP.No.1 of 2014
1.K.Venkatappa
2.K.Ramiah
3.K.Venkataraj ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.Venkataramiah
2.Muniappa
3.Srinivasan
4.Chinnaiah ..Respondents
PRAYER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC
against the order dated 21.03.2014 made in REP.No.7 of 2013 in
OS.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Denkanikottai, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
For Petitioners : Mr.Krishna Bhagavat
for Mr.P.Subba Reddy
For Respondents
For R1 :Mr.P.Mani
R2 to 4 : notice served
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
ORDER
This civil revision petition is directed as against the order
dated 21.03.2014 made in REP.No.7 of 2013 in OS.No.90 of 2005 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Denkanikotta, Hosur Taluk,
Krishnagiri District thereby ordered civil arrest of the petitioners herein.
2. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction in respect of
the suit schedule property as against the respondents 2 to 4 herein. The
said suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the first respondent
filed appeal suit in AS.No.28 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Hosur and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the first respondent filed
execution petition in REP.No.7 of 2013 and prayed for civil arrest as
against the respondents 2 to 4 and also the petitioners herein. Though the
petitioners filed their counter and thereafter they were set exparte and the
execution court passed order of civil arrest as against all the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they
are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. While being so,
without impleading the petitioners as parties, the first respondent filed suit
for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property only as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
against the respondents 2 to 4 herein. It was dismissed and reversed by
the first appellate court. In pursuant to the judgment and decree, the first
respondent filed execution petition and prayed for civil arrest. In the
execution petition, the petitioners were impleaded as respondents 4 to 6.
When there is no decree as against the petitioners, simply filed execution
petition for civil arrest. Though the petitioners filed counter they were set
exparte and ordered civil arrest as against the petitioners. In fact, even
before filing execution petition, the petitioners filed suit for declaration in
respect of the very same property in OS.No.95 of 2010 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Denkanikottai and it is pending for trial as against
the first respondent herein. Originally the suit property was purchased by
the first petitioner's father. In fact patta was also issued in his favour and
even till today they are paying kist for the suit schedule property and
proved their possession and enjoyment of the same. While being so, the
execution court mechanically ordered arrest as against the petitioners.
4. On perusal of the records, the first respondent filed suit for
declaration and injunction in OS.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Denkanikottai as against the respondents 2 to 4 herein.
Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties to the said suit. The said suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed appeal
suit in AS.No.28 of 2008 and the same was allowed and their suit was
decreed by the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2008. Thereafter they
disturbed the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the
suit property. As such the petitioners were constrained to file suit for
declaration in OS.No.95 of 2010 in respect of the very same property.
5. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the first respondent filed
execution petition in REP.No.7 of 2013 as against the respondents 2 to 4
and also against the petitioners herein and sought for civil arrest for
violating the order passed in AS.No.28 of 2008. Though the petitioners
filed counter and thereafter they were set exparte and ordered civil arrest.
Admittedly, the petitioners are not party to the suit filed by the first
respondent herein. In fact they also filed suit for declaration in OS.No.95
of 2010 and it is pending for trial on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Denkanikottai. When it being so, the execution court ought not to have
ordered for civil arrest, since the suit filed by the petitioners against the
first respondent is still pending on the very same court and they
categorically stated that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property and also they produced patta and kist receipt in respect of the
suit schedule property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
6. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the court
below is perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this civil
revision petition is allowed and the order dated 21.03.2014 made in
REP.No.7 of 2013 in OS.No.90 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Denkanikottai, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District is set aside.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
02.02.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
lok
To
The District Munsif Court, Denkanikottai,
Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
CRP.NPD.No.1390 of 2014
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
