Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1082 Mad
Judgement Date : 27 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.3742 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
C.R.P.No.3742 of 2001
Thimmakkal .. Petitioner
Vs.
Lakshmaiya Chetty .. Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC as against the
Judgment and order dated 29.06.2001 in C.M.A.No.29 of 2000 on the file of
the Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in confirming the order and decreetal
order dated 21.04.1995 in I.A.No.179 of 1994 against I.A.625 of 1991 in
O.S.516 of 1989.
For Petitioner : M/s V.Srimathi
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the Judgment and
order dated 29.06.2001 in C.M.A.No.29 of 2000 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Dharmapuri in confirming the order and decreetal order dated
21.04.1993 in I.A.No.179 of 1994 against I.A.625 of 1991 in O.S.516 of 1989,
thereby dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3742 of 2001
2. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.516 of
1989, on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 19.11.1979. However, the
petitioner herein failed to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance sale
consideration, though the respondent was always ready and willing to perform
his part of contract. Therefore, the respondent filed a suit and the same was
decreed by the Judgment and Decree dated 12.01.1990. The petitioner filed an
application to set aside the exparte decree in I.A.No.625 of 1991. Since the
respondent was absent, the said petition was allowed and the exparte decree
was set aside. However, the respondent filed an execution petition in E.P.No.98
of 1990, in order to execute the exparte decree. In the execution petition, the
sale deed was executed by the Court in favour of the respondent and possession
was also handed over on 01.10.1992.
3. Therefore, the respondent filed a petition to review the order passed in
I.A.No.625 of 1991. The Trial Court by an order dated 21.04.1993, recalled the
order passed in I.A.No.625 of 1991 and dismissed the application in I.A.No.625
of 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal before the first appellate Court. The order passed in I.A.No.625 of 1991
is an appealable order. However, those facts were not brought to the notice of
the Court and as such in the execution petition, the execution Court executed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3742 of 2001
the sale deed in favour of the respondent in respect of the suit schedule
property.
4. Therefore, the first appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal
and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court
below and this revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
27.01.2023
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3742 of 2001
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
mn
To
1. The Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri.
2. The District Munsif Judge, Krishnagiri.
C.R.P.No.3742 of 2001
27.01.2023
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!