Krishnammal vs M/S.Ramani Investments
2021 Latest Caselaw 19709 Mad

                                                                          C.R.P.(NPD).No.3370 of 2017

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 27.09.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

                                             C.R.P.(NPD)No.3370 of 2017
                                             and C.M.P.No.15689 of 2017

                      P.Narayanasamy (Died)
                      1.Krishnammal
                      2.Raja
                      3.Anbaraasu
                      4.Mahesh                                                     .. Petitioners

                                                            Vs.

                      M/s.Ramani Investments,
                      Rep. By its Managing Partner,
                      S.Jegadeesan,
                      Door No.3/340,
                      Rajaji Road,
                      Salem 636 007.                                               .. Respondent

                      Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil

                      Procedure Code, against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.09.2016,

                      allowing application in E.P.No.50 of 2013 in O.S.No.75 of 2003, on the

                      file of the III Additional District Court, Salem.



                      ___
                      1/6

http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                                      C.R.P.(NPD).No.3370 of 2017

                                   For Petitioners    : Mr.P.Jagadeesan

                                   For Respondent     : Mr.S.Parthasarathy (Senior Counsel)
                                                        for M/s.P.Sivakumar

                                                      ORDER

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal

order dated 23.09.2016, allowing application in E.P.No.50 of 2013 in

O.S.No.75 of 2003, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Salem.

2.The petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased P.Narayanasamy,

who is the defendant in O.S.No.75 of 2003, on the file of the III

Additional District Court, Salem. The respondent filed the said suit for

specific performance, permanent injunction or in the alternate, repay the

amount together with interest. The deceased P.Narayanasamy/defendant

filed written statement on 17.04.2000. Subsequently, he did not contest

the suit and did not appear. An exparte decree was passed on 12.01.2004.

After decree, the defendant died on 22.10.2004, leaving behind the

___

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3370 of 2017

petitioners as his legal heirs. The respondent filed E.P.No.50 of 2013, to

execute the decree dated 12.01.2004, against the petitioners, in July,

2013. The petitioners filed counter statement and submitted that the

petitioners are unaware of the alleged decree. The petitioners came to

know of the decree only after receiving notice in the E.P. The respondent

has filed E.P., after 9 years of exparte decree. The petitioners have made

improvements and developed the property and value of the property is

Rs.50,00,000/- per acre. The petitioners have also stated that they are

taking steps to set aside the exparte decree dated 12.01.2004 and prayed

for dismissal of E.P. The Execution Court rejected the objection of the

petitioners and by the order dated 23.09.2016, ordered E.P.No.50 of 2013

and directed the respondent to file draft sale deed by 18.10.2016.

3.Against the said order dated 23.09.2016, allowing application in

E.P.No.50 of 2013 in O.S.No.75 of 2003, the petitioners have come out

with the present Civil Revision Petition.

___

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3370 of 2017

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as

the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the

entire materials available on record.

5.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that

the respondent has not executed the exparte decree immediately when the

defendant was alive and filed after a delay of 9 years. The petitioners

have developed and improved the land and value of the property has

increased considerably. The said contentions are not acceptable. The

petitioners, as legal heirs of the deceased defendant, are bound by the

decree. It is seen from the averments in the counter statement, the

petitioners have stated that they are taking steps to set aside the exparte

decree before the Executing Court, but they have not filed any details of

the steps taken by them. In the grounds of revision, they have not even

stated that they have already taken steps to set aside the exparte decree.

At the time of hearing the Civil Revision Petition, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners admitted that they have not filed any

___

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3370 of 2017

application to set aside the exparte decree dated 12.01.2004. As rightly

held by the learned Judge, the Executing Court cannot go behind the

execution decree and the judgment passed by the competent court.

Considering all the materials in its entirety, there is no error or

irregularity in the order of the learned Judge, rejecting the claim of the

petitioners and ordering E.P., warranting interference by this Court.

For the above reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

27.09.2021 Index :: Yes/No gsa

To

The III Additional District Judge, Salem.

___

http://www.judis.nic.in C.R.P.(NPD).No.3370 of 2017

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

gsa

C.R.P.(NPD)No.3370 of 2017

27.09.2021

___

http://www.judis.nic.in