Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5988 of 2021
Mahalakshmi ... Review Petitioner
versus
1. Indirani (died)
2. Veerarajendran
(R2 is the legal heir of the
first respondent) ... Respondents
Review Application filed under Sections 114 and Order 47 Rule
(1) of C.P.C., to review the order dated 17.04.2021 passed in
CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018.
For Review Petitioner : M/s.R.Janakiramulu
For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
ORDER
This Review Application is filed seeking to review the order
dated 17.04.2021 passed in CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018.
2. CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018 was filed against the fair and
decreetal order dated 27.01.2017 passed in E.A.No.147 of 2012 in
E.P.No.157 of 2000 in O.S.No.961 of 1996 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Palani.
3. The review petitioner herein is the second defendant and the
respondents herein are plaintiffs 2 and 3 in O.S.No.961 of 1996 on the
file of District Munsif, Palani. The said suit was filed for permanent
injunction. In the said suit, both the parties have arrived at a
compromise. Based on the compromise memo, the suit in O.S.No.961
of 1996 was decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 03.10.1996.
Thereafter, the review petitioner/2nd defendant is said to have violated
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
the decree and put up a construction. Therefore, the
respondents/plaintiffs 2 and 3 filed an Execution Petition. The review
petitioner/2nd defendant also filed E.A.No.147 of 2012 to reject the
Execution Petition that there is no mandatory injunction granted. The
said application was dismissed by the trial Court, by order dated
27.01.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the review petitioner has filed
the above CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018. This Court, on 17.04.2021,
after considering the merits of the case, dismissed the Civil Revision
Petition holding that there is no merit in the grounds raised in support
of the Civil Revision Petition. Now, the review petitioner has filed the
Review Application on the ground that she has not violated the decree
passed in O.S.No.961 of 1996 and therefore, there is no necessity for
filing the Execution Petition and hence, the order passed in the Civil
Revision Petition has to be reviewed.
4. The Execution Petition was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs
2 and 3 stating that the review petitioner/2nd defendant, who has agreed
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
for the terms of compromise, has violated the same and the decree
passed by the trial Court and put up the construction. Therefore, for
removing the construction, the respondents/plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed
the Execution Petition to take action based on the decree passed in
O.S.No.961 of 1996.
5. In the Civil Revision Petition, this Court has also appointed an
Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. The
Advocate Commissioner has also submitted two reports that there was
no construction in the common pathway, but, the revision petitioner
constructed sunshade in his two windows, which were projected
towards the common pathway. However, in the Commissioner's report,
it is not stated that the revision petitioner constructed wall on the
northern side, by leaving ¾ feet in his property to put up steps,
sunshade and rainfall water, as per the compromise memo. Therefore,
this Court, by order dated 17.04.2021, dismissed the Civil Revision
Petition. However, the revision petitioner / review applicant claims that
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
he has not violated the conditions of the compromise memo and that
the reports of the Advocate Commissioner is in his favour.
6.Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to dwell into it. The
review applicant can very well agitate his claim before the Executing
Court, which shall decide the issue as to whether he violated the decree
or not based on the available materials. Therefore, this Review
Application is disposed of, with a direction to the Executing Court to
dispose of E.P.No.157 of 2000 in O.S.No.961 of 1996 within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 01.11.2022
Internet : Yes / No
ogy/gk
To
The learned Subordinate Judge,
Palani.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
01.11.2022
6/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
