Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M.Karuppa Devar vs G.Periya Muniyappan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1091 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1091 Mad
Judgement Date : 24 January, 2022

Madras High Court
M.Karuppa Devar vs G.Periya Muniyappan on 24 January, 2022
                                                                         C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                    DATED: 24.01.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                                     THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                             C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017

                1.M.Karuppa Devar

                2.K.Saraswathi Ammal                                        ... Petitioners

                                                            vs.
                1.G.Periya Muniyappan

                2.Bose                                                      ... Respondents

                PRAYER:- This Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
                Procedure, to set aside the order and decree dated 14.07.2017 made in E.P.No.
                149 of 2009 in O.S.No.455 of 2002 on the file of the learned Princiapl District
                Munsif, Dindigul.

                                  For Petitioners : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
                                  For Respondents : Mr.P.Vairavasundaran

                                                         ORDER

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the execution petition seeking the arrest of

the defendants/the judgment debtors, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this

Court.

2.The facts in brief are as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017

3.The plaintiffs had obtained a decree for injunction against the

defendants in O.S.No.455 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal District

Munsif, Dindigul on 29.09.2013. Since the defendants had violated the order of

injunction, the plaintiffs/decree holder had come forward with the execution

proceeding in E.P.No.149 of 2009. The defendants/the judgment debtors had

categorically denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs/decree holders.

Consequently, the Executing Court, namely, the Principal District Munsif,

Dindigul had dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

are before this Court.

4.Heard the learned counsels on either side.

5.The plaintiffs/decree holders obtained the following decree:-

“1.tof;F nrhj;jpy; thjpfSf;Fs;s mikjpahd mDgtj;ij gpujpthjpfNsh mthpd; Flk;gj;jhh;fNsh mtupd; tifahl;fNsh ahnjhU jilAk; ,ilQ;rYk; nra;af;$lhnjd;W epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lisg; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”

6.The decree holders had thereafter filed the execution proceeding

alleging that in the month of June, 2008, the judgment debtors along with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017

certain other persons had tried to destroy the ridges on the land and also

dumping garbage near the window of the plaintiffs' house. A police complaint

had been lodged by the decree holders and the police authorities had advised the

judgment debtors not to indulge in such activities, which the defendants had

agreed he would not indulge in to. However, the interference continued

constraining the plaintiffs to issue a legal notice dated 22.09.2008. Therefore,

the plaintiffs sought to execute the decree for injunction by seeking the arrest of

the judgment debtors. On receiving summons, it is seen that the judgment

debtors have categorically denied the allegations contained in the petition and

had gone on record to state that they have abided by the decree in its letter and

spirit.

7.The learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul after hearing the parties

and perusing the records was of the opinion that the exhibits filed on the side of

the decree holders/plaintiffs were created for the purpose of filing of this

petition and since there was no other evidence, the petitioners/decree holders

had failed to prove their contentions and accordingly, the execution petition

came to be dismissed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017

8.I cannot find fault with the finding of the trial Court. The

petitioners/decree holders, who claim that the judgment debtors/defendants had

destroyed the ridges in their land and dumped the garbage under the window of

his house, have not produced any document to prove their allegations. The two

documents, namely, the police complaint and the legal notice as rightly

observed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul are only the self-

serving documents.

9.In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the

order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No

costs.

                Index             : Yes / No                                    24.01.2022
                Internet          : Yes / No
                mm

                To

                The Principal District Munsif,
                Dindigul.




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                                    C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017



                                               P.T.ASHA, J.

                                                          mm




                                  C.R.P.(MD) No.2186 of 2017




                                                   24.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter