Lakshmi vs Ganesa Pillai
2021 Latest Caselaw 5993 Mad

                                                                        C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)


                            BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED :08.03.2021

                                                      CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

                                          C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)
                                               MP(MD) No.1 of 2014

                      Lakshmi                                                    .. Petitioner
                                                         Vs.

                      1.Ganesa Pillai
                      2.Gandhimathi
                      3.Murugesan
                      4.Kumaresan
                      5.Malini
                      6.Ramasamy
                      7.Jegajothi
                      8.Tamilarasi
                      9.Maheswari
                      10.Geetha
                      11.Rajendran                                             .. Respondents

                      Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
                      of India, to set aside the order passed by the Principal District Court,
                      Pudukottai, dated 26.11.2013 in T.O.P.No.15 of 2012.


                                        For Petitioner     : Mr.K.N.Govardhanan
                                        For R4 & R5        : Mr.G.Sridharan
                                        For R1 to R3 &
                                        R6 to R11          : No appearance




http://www.judis.nic.in
                      1/6
                                                                           C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)


                                                      ORDER

The petitioner seeks transfer of proceedings in E.A.No.130

of 2011, filed by her under Order 21 Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure,

claiming that she alone entitled to the suit properties, subject matter of

O.S.No.72 of 2004 and hence the decree in the said suit cannot be

executed against her. The suit in O.S.No.72 of 2004 is a suit for specific

performance filed by the fourth and fifth respondents against the

respondents 1 to 3 herein. The suit came to be decreed and the said

decree was put in execution in E.P.No.16 of 2017. Sale deed was also

executed by the Court and when delivery was ordered, the petitioner

herein has come up with E.A.No.130 of 2011, seeking for the reliefs

stated supra. Not stopping there, the petitioner also filed a suit for

partition in O.S.No.28 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Court,

Pudukottai. The petitioner filed transfer O.P.No.15 of 2012, seeking

transfer of execution proceedings in E.A.No.130 of 2011, to the file of

the Principal District Court, to be taken up along with the suit. The only

contention of the petitioner is that the questions to be decided in the Suit

as well as the application, which is filed under Order 21 Rule 97 is the

right, title and interest of the petitioner, if trial is conducted separately,

may result in conflicting judgments and therefore, both proceedings

should be tried together.

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)

2.The learned Principal District Judge, who heard the

transfer petition dismissed the same, concluding that it is the Executing

Court, which has the power to decide of questions relating to right title

and interest to the property, subject matter of execution before it.

Therefore, the learned District Judge relying upon the judgment of this

Court in 2013 3 TNLJ 207 dismissed the transfer original petition. The

petitioner has come up with this revision, as against the said order.

3.I have heard Mr.K.N.Govardhanan, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Sridharan, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents 4 & 5. The object of the petitioner is to

delay the proceedings. She had filed a suit for partition and also filed an

Execution Application. In terms of Order 21 Rule 101 of Civil Procedure

Code, the Executing Court is vested with the power to decide all

questions including the questions relating to the right title and interest of

the property arising between the parties to the proceedings on an

application under Rule 97 Order 99 or Order 21 of Code of Civil

Procedure. Therefore, the Executing Court being a competent Court, I do

not see any reason to transfer the Execution Proceedings, to the file of

the Principal District Court. In order to prevent any possibility of there http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)

being, conflicting judgments, if the proceedings go on separately, I am of

the opinion that this is a fit case, where, I can invoke my power under

Article 227 of Constitution of India and stayed the proceedings in

partition suit till such time the execution proceedings are disposed of. In

view of the same, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Proceedings in

O.S.No.28 of 2011 will stand stayed, till the disposal of the Execution

Application No.130 of 2011 by the Executing Court.

4.Considering the fact that the decree for specific

performance is of the year 2004, the Executing Court namely, the

Subordinate Court, Pudukottai is directed to dispose of the Execution

Application No.130 of 2011, within a period of 8 months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order, in this Revision. No costs. Registry is

directed to circulate this order to the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

08.03.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vrn

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)

To

The Principal District Court, Pudukottai

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD)

R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.

vrn

Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.2684 of 2014(PD) MP(MD) No.1 of 2014

08.03.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in