Madras High Court
Subbulakshmi vs M.Ramasamy on 28 August, 2023
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1849 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.08.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1849 of 2019
and CMP.Nos.12228 & 12229 of 2019
K.M.Nanjappan (died)
1.Subbulakshmi
2.N.Karuppusamy .. Petitioners
vs
1.M.Ramasamy
2.Devaki
3.V.Arunachalam
4.A.P.Sethuraman .. Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
against the fair and final order dated 30.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of
2019 in A.S.No.43 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge,
Coimbatore.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivaji
For Respondents : Mr.P.Tamilavel (for R1 & R2)
Mr.Krishnakumar (for R3 & R4)
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1849 of 2019
ORDER
The civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and
decreetal order in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in A.S.No.43 of 2019. A.S.No.43 of
2019 arises against the judgment and decreetal order in O.S.No.805 of
2010. O.S.No.805 of 2010 was a suit filed for declaration of title and for
permanent injunction. The said suit was dismissed by a judgment dated
12.02.2019. Against which, a regular appeal has been filed and the
appeal is pending.
2.Pending disposal of the appeal, an application was taken out in
I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking for stay of operation of dismissal of the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.805 of 2010.
3.Heard Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr.P.Tamilavel, learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2
and Mr.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for M/s.Sarvabhauman
Associates appearing for R3 and R4.
4.Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply
only for stay of execution of a decree. The suit that had been filed by the
petitioners/plaintiffs had been dismissed. There is no executable decree
and therefore, the lower Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the
application in I.A.No.1 of 2019. Therefore, the civil revision petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1849 of 2019
devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
5.At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
states that they are in possession of the property. It was sought to be
interfered with, by the respondents. A stay petition is not a solution for
such a situation. If they are so aggrieved, they should have filed an
application for interim injunction. That not having been filed, an
application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC cannot be converted into an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, especially when there
are no averments to that effect in the affidavit. The suit was initiated in
the year 2010 and it still languishing in the stage of appeal. The lower
Appellate Court is requested to dispose of the appeal within a period of
three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6.With the above direction, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vs
To
The Principal District Judge,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1849 of 2019
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vs
C.R.P.(NPD)No.1849 of 2019
and CMP.Nos.12228 & 12229 of 2019
28.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
