Madras High Court
Felix Rajkumar vs Coimbatore Diocese Society on 8 June, 2022
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1766 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1766 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.8885 of 2022
Felix Rajkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Coimbatore Diocese Society
Represented by its Director,
Bishop House, Post Box No.6,
Periyakadi, Veedi, Town Hall,
Coimbatore-641 001.
D.Vincent (Died)
2.Joan of ATC Arul
3.Roberto Rolario
4.VenilaInbarasi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 22.04.2022
passed in E.P.No.27 of 2019 in O.S.No.359 of 2000 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Pollachi and prays the same may kindly be set aside.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.C.Ashok Kumar
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1766 of 2022
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order
of the learned District Munsif, Pollachi dated passed in E.P.No.27 of 2019
in O.S.No.359 of 2000.
2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor against whom the
decree for recovery of possession was passed in O.S.No.359 of 2000. The
other suit in O.S.No.303 of 2000 was preferred by the revision petitioner for
the relief of permanent injunction and the same was dismissed through a
common judgment passed in O.S.No.303 of 2000 and O.S.No.359 of 2000.
In order to execute the decree got in favour of the respondents, he filed
execution proceedings in E.P.No.27 of 2019 and in which ''delivery'' has
been ordered on 22.04.2022. Aggrieved over that the revision petitioner has
preferred this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the revision
petitioner has challenged the decree passed against him in O.S.No.359 of
2000 by way of filing an appeal in A.S.No.36 of 2019 before the Sub-Court,
Pollachi. He would further submit that due to pandemic situation and also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1766 of 2022
because of the vacancy of the officer of the Court, he could not move his
petition filed for staying the operation of the decree pending the appeal and
in the meanwhile, delivery has been ordered and that would affect the scope
of the appeal proceedings.
4. On perusal of e-Court records, it is seen that an appeal preferred by
the revision petitioner is pending in A.S.No.36 of 2019 and it stood
adjourned for several hearings due to lockdown and thereafter, for awaiting
the correct records. So, it is not wrong on the part of the revision petitioner
to state that he could not conduct his stay petition before the Appellate
Court. Since the appeal is pending, if the property is delivered in pursuance
to the impugned order that would defeat the ends of justice. Since the
revision petitioner has got right for First Appeal, the impugned order or
granting delivery can be stayed till the revision petitioner, moves the
Appellate Court in order to get stay of operation of the decree.
5. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed by granting the relief
of stay of the order of delivery alone passed in E.P.No.27 of 2019 in
O.S.No.359 of 2000 till the revision petitioner moves the Appellate Court in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1766 of 2022
order to get stay of operation of the decree. No Costs. Consequently,
connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
ssn
To
1. The District Munsif Court,
Pollachi.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1766 of 2022
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
ssn
C.R.P.(NPD).No.1766 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.8885 of 2022
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
