Madras High Court
T.Munusamy vs Sivasankaran on 26 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date :26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(NPD)(MD)No.22 of 2020
T.Munusamy ... Petitioner
Vs
Sivasankaran ...Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the order passed dated 05.07.2019 made in
E.A.S.R.1754 of 2019 in E.P.No.36 of 2017 in E.P.No.
27 of 2015 in E.P.No.28 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2011
on the file of the Additional District (Fast Track
Court) Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathisankar
For respondent : Mr.P.Thiyagarajan
*****
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the order passed dated 05.07.2019 made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
E.A.S.R.1754 of 2019 in E.P.No.36 of 2017 in E.P.No.
27 of 2015 in E.P.No.28 of 2015 in O.S.No.21 of 2011
on the file of the Additional District (Fast Track
Court) Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
2. The petitioner would aver among other
things that a suit sale agreement was entered between
the petitioner and the respondent on 29.08.2011. Due
to dispute, a specific performance suit came to be
filed in O.S.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Thanjavur and the same was
decreed in favour of the respondent on 06.02.2014. A
memo was filed to incorporate the recitals in the
decree as mentioned in the judgment. The decree was
amended on 25.03.2014. Questioning the same, the
judgment debtor/ the petitioner has filed CRP(NPD)
No.1022 & 1023 of 2015 and further sought to strike
off E.P.No.71 & 34 of 2014. E.P's were also struck
off and the decree holder was permitted to file the
appropriate application before the trial Court
seeking amendment of the decree. On 26.10.2015, a
petition was filed to amend the decree and the same
was ordered in I.A.No.133 of 2015 whereby recitals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
mentioned in the judgment is incorporated even in the
decree. Again, Civil Revision Petition PD(MD).No.2776
of 2015 came to be filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 26.10.2015. Fresh E.P
was filed for execution of sale deed in E.P.No.1 of
2016 and the same was allowed in favour of decree
holder. Further, Section 47 application was filed in
E.A.No.7 of 2018 in E.P.No.1 of 2016 in O.S.No.21 of
2011. The sale deed was executed in favour of decree
holder as per order dated 11.11.2016 in E.P.No.1 of
2016 on 30.01.2017. E.P.No.67 of 2017 in O.S.No.21 of
2011 was filed seeking delivery of property after the
execution of sale deed in favour of the decree holder
and the same was ordered for delivery of property in
favour of the decree holder and also it was delivered
to the decree holder on 10.01.2018. Meanwhile,
CRP(MD).No.24 of 2018 challenging the delivery order
15.11.2017 was dismissed by this Court. Delivery
recorded and E.P.No.67 of 2017 was closed and section
47 application was also dismissed on 26.11.2018.
Another CRP(MD).No.279 of 2019 was filed against the
order dated 26.11.2018 made in E.A.No.7 of 2018 was
dismissed. Yet another CRP(PD).No.2776 of 2015 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
filed by the petitioner herein challenging the order
dated 26.10.2018 which was dismissed and the present
revision is filed challenging the order dated
05.07.2019 made in E.A.Sr.No.1754 of 2019 which has
been filed seeking re-delivery of the property,
delivered in the execution proceedings as early as on
10.01.2018 as not maintainable. However, the Court
below dismissed the application preferred by the
petitioner and passed the present impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
would contend that the court below without giving an
opportunity of hearing had passed the present
impugned order which is not sustainable in the eye of
law. Further, though the value of the property is on
the higher side, the property was delivered only for
a meagre sum to the respondent herein. In a nutshell,
the petitioner prefers this Civil Revision Petition
for redelivery of the subject matter of the property
but without considering the same, the impugned order
has been passed by the Court below. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated
supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. The learned counsel for the respondent
would only contend that the attempt of the petitioner
to file the present Civil Revision Petition is
nothing but to drag on the proceedings endlessly
despite the fact that the respondent had paid full
consideration for the property in question.
Therefore, he seeks for dismissing the Civil Revision
Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent
and perused the materials available on record.
6. A perusal of the entire case records to
show that umpteen number of Civil Revision Petitions
and applications were filed by the petitioner to
exhaust all the legal remedies available to him in
respect of the subject matter of the property. After
availing all those remedies available to the
petitioner, eventually, the petitioner filed
E.A.S.R.No.1754of 2019 before this Court and the
Court below after carefully noting the point that the
decree was passed in the suit and the sale deed was
executed and registered the document No.301/2017 and
admittedly, the suit schedule of property was also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
delivered to the decree-holder/plaintiff on
10.01.2018 itself. Further, the Court below has also
taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner
cannot invoke Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and
the Court below had rightly dealt with the
application preferred by the petitioner on the ground
of maintainability also in which no infirmity nor
illegality could be found. A glimpse of the case
would show that the petitioner wants to procrastinate
the proceedings endlessly which cannot be allowed by
this Court. Therefore, the order passed by the Court
below is perfectly in order which need not be
disturbed at the hands of this Court.
7. The Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. However, there will be no order as to
costs.
26.02.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
The Additional District
(Fast Track Court)
Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
Copy to:-
The Section Officer,
V.R.Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
J.NISHA BANU, J
bala
CRP(NPD)(MD)No.22 of 2020
26.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
