Madras High Court
S.N.Prabhakaran vs P.Kesavan on 9 February, 2021
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)No.977 of 2021
S.N.Prabhakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Kesavan
2.N.Murugan
3.N.S.Narayanasamy
4.M.Vasuki ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC., to
call for the records relating to the Judgment and Decree dated
15.12.2020 passed in C.M.A.No.4 of 2020 by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Theni, confirming the fair
order and decreetal order dated 02.12.2019 passed in E.A.No.178
of 2019 in E.A.No.64 of 2018 in E.A.No.228 of 2012 in E.P.No.51 of
2009 by the Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam and set aside the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajamohan
For Respondents : Mr.Vanjinathan
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 15.12.2020 passed in C.M.A.No.4 of
2020 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
Court), Theni, confirming the fair order and decreetal order dated
02.12.2019 passed in E.A.No.178 of 2019 in E.A.No.64 of 2018 in
E.A.No.228 of 2012 in E.P.No.51 of 2009 by the Subordinate Judge,
Uthamapalayam.
2.The brief facts of the present case are follows:-
2.1. The first respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.152
of 1996 before the Sub Court, Periyakulam for specific
performance. In the suit one Murugan, who is the second
respondent herein, being the owner of the property and agreement
holder was arrayed as first defendant and the second defendant
(third respondent herein), who is said to have purchased the suit
property pending the subsistance of agreement. On consideration
of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge decreed the
suit on 27.09.2002. Thereafter, the third respondent herein, who
claimed to have purchased in the interregnum period of agreement,
had filed an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2006 before the Additional
District Court, Periyakulam the learned Additional District Judge
after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal on 18.10.2011.
Thereafter, second appeal filed with a delay of 1736 days and by a
detailed order dated 14.10.2017, this Court dismissed the delay
condonation petition. Aggrieved over the same, the third
respondent herein filed Special Leave petitions in SLP.Nos.22224 to
22225 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
was dismissed and thereby confirmed the order passed by this
Court and the decreetal order passed by the Court below become
final and the order of the Hon'bel Supreme Court had merged with
the decree of the Court below in O.S.No.152 of 1996.
2.2. Thereafter, the first respondent herein filed an execution
petition. In the said petition a claim petition was filed by one
Vasuki, who is the landlord of the petitioner herein, by claiming
that she had purchased the suit property pending appeal from the
third respondent herein, who was defeated upto the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The said petition was dismissed and aggrieved
over the same, the said Vasuki filed a revision petition in C.R.P.
(MD)No.2668 of 2016 before this Court and the same was
dismissed and thereby confirmed the order passed by the executing
Court. The said Vasuki filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2020 for
declaration. The petitioner herein is the tenant of the said Vasuki
and he filed an obstruction petition in E.A.No.
64 of 2017 and the same was dismissed for non-appearance of the
petitioner herein, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal in
C.M.A.No.4 of 2020 and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved
over the same, the present civil revision petition filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
submit that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the suit property
inducted by the fourth respondent and he was not aware of the
earlier litigations between the respondents and the pendency of the
execution petition. On coming to know the same, he filed E.A.64 of
2017 to obstruct the delivery before the Sub Court,
Uthamapalayam. Due to viral fever, the petitioner was not able to
appear before the Court and therefore, the petition of the petitioner
came to be dismissed for default. For restoring the said petition,
the petitioner filed E.A.No.178 of 2019 and the same was
dismissed, against which, C.M.A.No.4 of 2020 before the Additional
District and Sessions Court, Theni and the same was also
dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the petitioner herein is a tenant under a subsequent
purchaser, who had lost upto this Court, who claimed to have
purchased the property from a person, who had lost upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner herein had abused the
process of Court by using the provisions of Order 21 CPC., and the
above said application is a fourth round of litigation. He would
further submit that the suit is of the year 1996 and a successful
litigant was prevented from executing the decree. Hence, he would
pray for dismissal of this petition.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and
perused the materials available on record.
6.Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the tenant under a
subsequent purchaser, who had lost upto this Court, who claimed to
have purchased the property from a person, who had lost upto the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Judge finding that
subsequent purchaser is not entitled to maintain the application
under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., without entering into the said factor
and held that the appeal is a sheer abuse of process of law and
dismissed the same where I do not find any infirmity and
interference of this Court is not warranted.
7.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents brought to the notice of this Court that this Court by
an order dated 21.10.2019 in CRP.(MD)No.1876 of 2019 has given
a direction to dispose of the petition in E.A.No.228 of 2012 within a
period of two months and till date the petition is pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
gns
8.In view of the same, the learned Judge is directed to
dispose of the petition E.A.No.228 of 2012, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order. Accordingly,
this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.02.2021
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
gns
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.
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court),
Theni.
2.The Subordinate Court,
Uthamapalayam.
C.R.P.(MD)No.160 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
