Madras High Court
N.Padma vs Pavathal on 12 April, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
V.Natarajan (died)
1.N.Padma
2.N.Sachidanandam
3.M.Sadanandi
4.N.Vaiyapuri
5.N.Bavatharini
6.N.Hamsika ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Pavathal
Chidambara gounder (died)
Ramasamy gounder (died)
2.R.Nallamuthu gounder
3.R.Sengottaian
S.Kumurasamy gounder (died)
R.Viswanathan (died)
4.E.P.Muthusamy gounder
Karuppanna gounder @ Kuttappallian (died)
C.Rajagopal (died)
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
5.C.Sundaramoorthy
C.Chandrasekaran (died)
6.Rajammal @ Chellammal
7.Saroja @ Sarojini
8.Subramaniam
9.Palaniammal
10.Arukkani
11.Ekambaram
12.Lalli @ Lalitha
13.Chandra
14.R.Banumathi
15.V.Sudha
16.S.Geetha
... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking to set
aside the order dated 21.03.2014 made in E.A.No.160 of 2007 in unnumbered E.P
in C.F.R.No.832 of 1992 in O.S.No.405 of 1982, on the file of the Principal District
Munsif, Erode.
For Petitioners 3 to 6 : Mr.G.S.Suvethan
For R4 : Mr.M.Guruprasad
For R1 to R3 and
R5 to R16 : No Appearance
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is a decree holder in O.S.No.405 of 1982. The suit
was laid for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction by the father of the
revision petitioners. The said suit was laid against fourteen defendants and it came
to be decreed exparte on 16.03.1988. Challenging the decree, defendants 2, 3 and 4
preferred A.S.No.84 of 1988, whereas the defendants 7, 8 and 10 have laid
A.S.No.72 of 1988. Both these first appeals came to be dismissed by a common
judgment dated 23.03.1989. Challenging the said decree of the first appellate Court,
the 4th defendant alone preferred S.A.No.1304 of 1989. On 27.09.2002, that too
came to be dismissed.
2.Subsequent to the dismissal of the first appeals, on 21.01.1992, the plaintiff laid
an Execution Petition for giving effect to the decree for mandatory injunction and
for evicting the defendants from the property. However, the same was returned on
28.01.1992. Thereafter, it was again represented on 27.02.1992 and the same was
again returned on 03.03.1992 on the ground that a specific provision of Order 21
C.P.C, which is required to be followed is not stated and there were atleast seven
returns for the same reason.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
3.Ultimately, after the dismissal of the second appeal preferred by the 4th defendant
in S.A.No.1304 of 1989, the said execution petition was again represented on
07.06.2006. Now, the correct provision of law was stated as Order 21 Rule 32
C.P.C. But, the plaintiff has passed away on 12.01.2004, which is about 1 ½ years
since the dismissal of S.A.No.1304 of 1989, and the final representation was made
by his legal representatives. Along with this, they took out an application in
E.A.No.160 of 2007, for condonation of delay of 5097 days. In the affidavit filed in
support of this application, it is averred that they were not aware of the E.P
proceedings at all, and that they came to know about the suit and the Execution
Petition required to be represented only after the demise of their father. This was
not accepted by the Execution Court, which contended that the plaintiff / Decree
Holder had been negligent in prosecuting the same.
4.Heard Mr.G.S.Suvethan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners / the
petitioner in Execution Petition and Mr.M.Guruprasad, who appeared for the
contesting sole 4th respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
5.At the outset, this Court is disappointed to record that the Execution Petition
ought not to have been returned by the Court for not mentioning the provision of
law since it is the job of the Court to execute the decree, and any such omission
cannot be a reason for the Court to obligate its responsibility to entertain an
application for execution. It is true that the applicant could have been far too
diligent and might have been even negligent in not providing an innocuous fault in
omitting to quote the right provision of law in Column 10 of the Execution Petition,
but that at any rate cannot cost the revision petitioners / Decree Holders their right
to execute the decree.
6.The learned counsel for the 4th defendant, with her usual vehemence resisted it as
an excessive indulgence on the part of the Court to condone the delay of 5097 days
when the negligence is palpable on the face of the Execution Petition, and the
multiple returns the Court has given for the same purpose.
7.This Court finds from the impugned order that all the JDs cited by the DH had
been served with the notice of E.A.No.160 of 2007, but only the 4th defendant had
made his appearance before the Execution Court to resist the application. What is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
however, significant is that the Execution Petition is not laid against the 4th
defendant. This Court, therefore, considers that the 4th defendant does not have any
locus standi to resist the present application and also the revision, and hence cannot
advance an argument in anticipation of a possible Execution Petition against him at
a later point of time.
8.So far as the condonation of delay is concerned, it is inordinate, and the delay can
be partly attributed to the negligence of the respondents. But as outlined earlier, the
reason for which the Execution Petition was returned a few times by the Court itself
is not tenable, and to repeat, it is the job of the Court to execute the decree even
ignoring such minor issues like quoting the correct provision of law. However, for
the inconvenience caused to the Court with the negligence of the revision
petitioners, this Court slaps a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the revision petitioners.
9.While this Court directed the learned counsel for the revision petitioners to pay
50% of the cost to Adyar Cancer Institute, the learned counsel offered to obtain
books worth Rs.25,000/- which may be useful to young lawyers. The same is
recorded with appreciation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
10.This Civil Revision Petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the Adyar Cancer Institute (WIA), West
Canal Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020 and the remaining amount of
Rs.25,000/- to procure books which may be useful to some junior advocates and the
same may be done on or before 08.06.2023.
11.Post the matter on 08.06.2023 under the caption "for reporting compliance".
12.04.2023
Anu
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking /Non Speaking Order
Copy to:
The Principal District Munsif, Erode.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
Anu
C.R.P.(NPD).No.3479 of 2014
12.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
