Madras High Court
) S.Lakshmi vs ) T.S.Arumugam on 3 September, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.6510 of 2019
(Through Video Conference)
1) S.Lakshmi
2) N.Margabanth .. Petitioners
Versus
1) T.S.Arumugam
2) T.S.Somasundaram
3) T.S.Panchanathan
4) Kamalammal
5) Ayyakannu Chetti
6) Somasundara Chetti
7) Vaitheeswara Chetti
8) Badrinathan
9) T.V.Vasudevan
10) P.Gnanasoundari
________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Page 1 of 6
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
11) Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Managing Director .. Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to direct the Subordinate Court, Thiruppathur to take on file, number and
adjudicate the unnumbered REA.SR.No.907 of 2019 in E.P.No.63/2010 in
O.S.No.23 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Court, Thiruppathur.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivasubramanian
For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan
For R-4 : No Appearance
******
O RD E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur in unnumbered REA.SR.No.907 of 2019 in
E.P.No.63/2010 in O.S.No.23 of 1978.
2. Perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.23 of 1978 was filed by the
respondents/ decree holders seeking for recovery of possession of 'B' Schedule
Trust properties and to call upon the defendants to render accounts from
27.01.1975 upto the date of delivery of possession and to direct the defendants
to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.
________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
3. This suit was decreed on 05.01.1981. Against the said judgment, the
petitioners preferred an appeal in A.S.No.37 of 1982 before this Court. The
appeal came to be dismissed on 12.07.1990. Thereafter, the execution petition
in E.P.No 63 of 2010 was filed and it is pending. Pending execution petition,
the present R.E.A.Sr.Nos.907 & 908 of 2019 were filed for the relief of staying
further proceedings in E.P.No.63 of 2010, pending disposal of the scheme suit
filed by the petitioners and hear the objections of the petitioners and ensure the
management of the Trust properties in the hands of the Managing Trustees, in
accordance with the scheme suit.
4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur made a return on these
petitions, as detailed below:
"(i) The petitioners are third parties to the suit
and as well as the execution proceedings. The allegation
leveled by the petitioners in the Affidavit cannot be
considered in the Execution Court and the petitioners
have no right to stay Execution of the decree in
E.P.No.63 of 2010. In O.S.No.23 of 1978 further this
application is filed by the petitioners only to drag on the
proceedings which is against the conditional order of
the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Hence returned.
(ii) The petitioners have no locustandi to file this
________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
petition U/O 21 R 97 CPC since some other persons
claimed that they are possession once the suit property
as trustees and the matter is pending before the Hon'ble
Principal District Judge Court, Vellore and some one
Samy Chettiar is filed an application U/O 21 R 97 CPC
along with U/S 47 of CPC before this Court and the
same is tagged for disposal. The petitioners filed this
application to avoid the Decree Holder from enjoying
the fruits of the Decree. Hence, the compliance of the
petitioners to the return dated 15.02.2019 is not
satisfactory to taken on file. Hence, the petition is
returned."
Against these returns, the present Civil Revision Petition has been
filed.
5. The reasoning given for the returns is that petitioners have no right to
seek the stay of the decree and the applications are filed only to drag on the
proceedings and to delay the decree holders from enjoying the fruits of the
decree.
6. Obviously, these kind of returns cannot be made. The learned
Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur has to number the applications, if they have
substance and in accordance with law. If the learned Subordinate Judge,
Thiruppathur feels as the basis of informed decision, that the applications have
________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
no substance and are not maintainable in law, the learned Subordinate Judge,
Thiruppathur has to reject the applications. Therefore, the order of learned
Subordinate Judge, Thiruppathur is set aside and the learned Subordinate
Judge, Thiruppathur is directed to either number these applications, if he finds
that there is substance and they are maintainable in accordance with law,
otherwise he has to reject the applications.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Disposed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Registry is directed to
return the original application to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Aforesaid directions should be completed within a period of two(02) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
03.09.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
sts/jai
To:
The Subordinate Court,
Thiruppathur.
________
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,
sts/jai
Order made in
C.R.P.(NPD)No.981 of 2019
Dated:
03.09.2021
________
http://www.judis.nic.in
