Madras High Court
A.N.S.Rajasekar vs The Jamia Mosque Executive ... on 22 April, 2022
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.350 of 2017
A.N.S.Rajasekar ... Petitioner/Respondent
Respondent/Defendant
Vs.
The Jamia Mosque Executive Committee,
Tuticorin,
Through its President. ... Respondent/ Petitioner
Petitioner/Plaintiff
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order, dated,
02.01.2017 passed in E.A.No.1 of 2017 in E.P.No.93 of 2014 in O.S.No.
11 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Senthil
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
ORDER
The defendant in the suit has filed the present revision petition.
2. The plaintiff, namely, The Jamia Mosque Executive Committee,
has filed E.P.No.93 of 2014 for taking delivery of the scheduled
mentioned property on the basis of the ejectment decree. The delivery
was ordered on 27.11.2015. However, when the amin visited the
property, the property was under lock and key and hence, he could not
execute the warrant. Hence, the present application in E.A.No.1 of 2017
has been filed by the decree holder to break open the petition mentioned
property so as to effect the decree for ejectment. The said application was
allowed on 02.01.2017.
3. The order for allowing the break open petition is under
challenge by the judgment-debtor. The said order is mainly challenged
on the ground that they have filed an appeal, which is in the S.R stage
from the year 2016 onwards. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that no prior notice was served upon him before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
passing of an order of the break open. He further contended that the huge
sum of Rs.7,31,280/- has been paid and hence, the break open order
should not have been passed. The learned counsel for the respondent
contended that the present E.P.No.93 of 2014 is only for effecting
delivery and it is not for recovery of money.
4. The revision petitioner/judgment debtor has not challenged the
order of delivery, dated, 27.11.2015. The order under challenge in the
present revision petition is only permitting break open of the petition
mentioned property. The grounds raised by the revision petitioner is not
sustainable in law. I do not find any merits to interfere with this petition.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
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 Judge,
Tuticorin.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
gbg
Order made in
C.R.P(MD)No.99 of 2017
22.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
