S.Sujin Singh vs D.Aspan Selvan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3095 Mad

                                                                              C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 09.02.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

                                             C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021
                                                      and
                                             C.M.P(MD).No.838 of 2021



                      S.Sujin Singh                              ... Petitioner / Petitioner/
                                                                         Judgment Debtor

                                                        Vs.


                      1. D.Aspan Selvan                   .... Respondent/ Respondent/
                                                                  Decree holder
                      2. Satheesh                         .... Respondent/ Respondent/
                                                                  Auction Purchaser

                      Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 115 of Constitution
                      of India, to set aside the order dated 24.01.2020, made in E.A.No.03 of
                      2019 in E.P.No.48 of 2017 in O.S.No.263 of 2015 on the file of the
                      Subordinate Court, Padmanabapuram, and consequently direct the trial
                      Court to set aside the sale held on 19.06.2019 and declare the sale as
                      Null and void.


                                    For Petitioner   : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran




http://www.judis.nic.in
                      1/6
                                                                                  C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021




                                                        ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated

24.01.2020, made in E.A.No.03 of 2019 in E.P.No.48 of 2017 in O.S.No.

263 of 2015 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabapuram, and

consequently direct the trial Court to set aside the sale held on

19.06.2019 and declare the sale as Null and void.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant and the 1st respondent is

the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.263 of 2015 and the 2nd respondent is

the auction purchaser.

3. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the

respondent/plaintiff has filed a money suit in O.S.No.263 of 2015, on the

file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabapuram, against the revision

petitioner/defendant for recovery of Rs.2,26,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs

twenty six thousand only) with 12% future interest per annum from the

date of the suit till the date of realization from the revision

petitioner/defendant and his assets including the schedule property and

the same was allowed. In pursuance of the said decree, the

respondent/plaintiff has filed E.P.No.48 of 2017 and the property was put

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021

on auction sale by the executing Court on 19.06.2019. Challenging the

same, the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.3 of 2019 to declare the same

is void and non-est in law and the same was dismissed by the lower

Court. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner came forward to

file the present revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

materials placed before this Court. As no adverse order is going to be

passed, no notice is necessary to the respondents.

5. Perusal of the impugned order would show that an ex-parte

decree was passed in the money suit as the revision petitioner after

received the summons did not appear before the trial Court and it is also

evident that E.A.No.380 of 2018 was filed to stay the operation of the

decree and on deposit of Rs.50,000/- the same was allowed and he filed

vakalath on 31.10.217, which would definitely show his knowledge of

the proceedings even from that date, but he neither took steps to pay the

amount nor set aside the ex-parte decree. Further, even in reducing the

upset price petition in E.A.No.603 of 2018, though the revision petitioner

received the notice, he kept quite and allowed the petition to be set ex-

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021

parte. If really the petitioner was aggrieved, he ought to have filed

petition at least at that time, which he failed to do so. Thereafter, the

property was auctioned and the entire sale amount deposited. Now, the

petitioner has filed stay petition, which clearly shows the intention of the

petitioner to protract the proceedings further without settling the

respondent. For the above said reasons, the learned Judge rightly

dismissed the E.A.No.03 of 2019 in E.P.No.48 of 2017 in O.S.No.263 of

2015 and hence, the order of the trial Court does not warrant any

interference from this Court.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.02.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No pkn

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021

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 Subordinate Court, Padmanabapuram.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

J.NISHA BANU,J.

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021

pkn

C.R.P(MD)No.133 of 2021

09.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in