Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15964 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.3209 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.3209 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.16546 of 2023
T.Maheswaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. N.Raja (died)
2. Manimekala
3. Sushma
(represented by her mother/natural guardian
2nd respondent) ... Respondents
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to allow this Revision Petition and set aside the
order passed in E.A.No.7 of 2022 in E.P.No.18 of 2021 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Eraniel dated 20.01.2023 in so far as appointing an
advocate as court guardian for minor R3 and fixing his fees at Rs.10,000/-
to be paid by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : M/s.D.Ajitha Thrase
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.3209 of 2023
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in
E.A.No.7 of 2022 in E.P.No.18 of 2021 in O.S.No.37 of 2019 dated
20.01.2023, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Eraniel.
2. The revision petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.37 of 2019 for
recovery of money and obtained a decree dated 02.07.2020 and that since
the decree was not complied, the revision petitioner has laid the execution
petition in E.P.No.18 of 2021 for attachment and sale of the property
belonging to the first respondent/judgment debtor.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that since the first respondent/judgment debtor died, his legal
representatives second respondent-wife and third respondent-minor
daughter were sought to be impleaded, that they have filed the above
application in E.A.No.7 of 2022 to appoint the second respondent as
guardian for the minor third respondent and that the Executing Court has
appointed an advocate as Court guardian and fixed remuneration at
Rs.10,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. It is seen from the records that the second respondent-wife of the
judgment debtor remained ex parte and the Court, in the absence of any
proposed parties suggested by the revision petitioner/decree holder, has
appointed an advocate as Court guardian. If the revision petitioner is
aggrieved by the quantum of remuneration, they are at liberty to approach
the concerned Court for reducing the amount and that is not a ground for
challenging the impugned order itself.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned order appointing an advocate as Court guardian for the minor
since the proposed guardian remained ex parte, cannot be found fault with.
Consequently, this Court concludes that the revision is devoid of merit and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
08.12.2023 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Eraniel.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Order made in
and
Dated : 08.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!