Madras High Court
S.V.Gandhi vs A.Kamatchi @ Kamatchia Pillai on 2 March, 2022
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON 25.03.2022
DELIVERED ON 19.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CR.P.(MD)No.626 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2591 of 2022
S.V.Gandhi ...Petitioner/Petitioner/3rd party
Vs.
1.A.Kamatchi @ Kamatchia Pillai
2.A.Tamilselvan ...Respondents/Petitioners/Petitioners
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the fair and executable order dated 02.03.2022, and made in
E.A.No. 55 of 2021 in E.P.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned District
Munif, Vadipatti.
For Petitioner :Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan
For Respondents :Mr.K.K.Ravie
ORDER
These Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioner
to set aside the dated 02.03.2022 in E.A.No. 55 of 2021 in E.P.No.27 of 2008
on the file of the learned District Munif, Vadipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The parties are referred to as per the rank mentioned before the Court
below.
3.The revision petitioner/3rd party has filed an application in E.A.No.55
of 2021 to dismiss the petition in E.P.No.27 of 2008 on the ground that he
has purchased the property from one Ramachandran on 28.06.2007. The said
Ramachandran had purchased the properties from one Gurusamy on
15.10.1954. Aggrieved over the said dismissal order, the revision
petitioner/3rd party is before this Court.
4.Heard on either side. Perused the material documents.
5.This Civil Revision Petition is filed on the ground that the Court
below has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a
Judgment debtor and he has not been dispossessed and hence no locus standi
or the petition is premature one, is incorrect and illegal. The Court below has
failed to see that the suit and the decree obtained by the respondents are
fraudulent one, as the original owner of the suit property sold out the same
even in the year 1965 but suppressed the said fact the suit is filed and
collusive decree is obtained against and support of the alleged lessee, and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
execution petition trying to take possession of the petitioner's property, hence
illegal. The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.
6.The said Ramachandran has filed a impleading petition in E.A.No.70
of 2004 in E.P.No.27 of 2008 and the said petition was dismissed for default
on 01.03.2007. The Ramachandran has not taken any steps to set aside the
order. After passing an order of default, the Ramachandran has sold the
property to the present petitioner.
7.The predecessor in title is one Gurusamy. His grandson also filed an
application in E.A.No.26 of 2008 to claim the tile over the E.P. property. It
was dismissed on merits. No further proceedings against the order.
8. The revision petitioner has purchased the property in pending suit.
The predecessor of the title also failed to establish their title and rights over
the property.
9.The Judgment reported in 2021 (2) MWN (Civil) 544 (SC),
R.Janakiammal vs. S.K.Kumarasamy, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Order 21 Rule 97 & 99 – Execution of
decree. – if an objection is received in respect of ''suit
property'' under Order 21, Rule 97, or Rule 99 of
CPC, at the stage of execution of the decree, the
executing Court shall deal with it after taking into
account the fact that no such objection or claim was
received during the pendency of the suit, especially in
view of the public notice issued during trial. Such
claims under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 99, must be
dealt strictly and be considered/entertained rarely.”
10.Finally, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the
order, dated 02.03.2022 in E.A.No. 55 of 2021 in E.P.No.27 of 2008 on the
file of the learned District Munif, Vadipatti. No Costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index :Yes/No 19.04.2022
Internet:Yes/No
ksa
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The District Munif Court,
Vadipatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.626 of 2022
19.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
