Madras High Court
Karthikeyan vs M.Ravi on 31 January, 2023
2023/MHC/433
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.21781 of 2022
1.Karthikeyan
2.Chinduja ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.M.Ravi
2.Natarajan
G.Narayanasamy (died)
3.Andal ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order 29.08.2022 made in E.A.No.656 of 1997 in
E.P.No.87 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.
For Petitioners : Dr.P.Vasudevan
For Mr.V.Chinnasamy
For R1 : Mr.A.Arun
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 29.08.2022
passed in E.A.No.656 of 1997 in E.P.No.87 of 1995.
2. The revision petitioners are the impleaded respondents / judgment
debtors in the Execution Petition.
3. The Suit was instituted for Recovery of Money based on the
promissory note executed on 08.03.1986 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in favour
of the one Sivagami.
4. The Suit in O.S.No.94 of 1989 was decreed in favour of the
plaintiff by the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet on 14.12.1989.
5. The 3rd respondent / judgment debtor preferred an Appeal Suit in
A.S.No.12 of 1991 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Sub Court,
Udumalpet. Subsequently, the decree holder filed Execution Petition in
E.P.No.87 of 1995 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.94 of 1989 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
the property belongs to the 3rd respondent herein was attached by the Court
and brought for auction.
6. It is not in dispute that the property was auctioned and the sale
deed was also executed in favour of the auction purchaser / 1st respondent.
After the execution of the decree by further executing the sale deed, the
E.A.No.656 of 1997 was filed for delivery of possession under
Order XXI Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code.
7. The petition was filed by the auction purchaser in favour of whom
the sale deed was executed, based on the decree passed in O.S.No.94 of
1989. The Execution Court elaborately adjudicated the issues and
accordingly, allowed the petition by ordering delivery on 22.09.2022.
Challenging the said order of delivery, the present Civil Revision Petition is
filed.
8. The revision petitioners herein are the legal heirs of the judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
debtor and the subject property is an ancestral property and therefore, the
delivery petition is to be rejected.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention
by stating that the very same petitioner herein earlier filed an Obstructor
Petition, which was dismissed by the Execution Court and therefore, the
present petition filed by the revision petitioner in E.A.No.656 of 1997 is not
maintainable and was rightly rejected by the Execution Court.
10. The contention of the revision petitioners that they are the legal
heirs of the judgment debtor and the subject property is an ancestral
property is unacceptable and deserve no merit consideration. The decree
became final and it was executed by way of sale deed in favour of the
1st respondent / auction purchaser, who in turn, filed a petition for Delivery
of possession and therefore, the order impugned passed by the District
Munsif Court, Udumalpet in E.A.No.656 of 1997 in E.P.No.87 of 1995
dated 29.08.2022 is in consonance with the principles settled and there is no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
infirmity as such.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
31.01.2023
skr
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
The Judge,
District Munsif Court,
Udumalpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
skr
C.R.P.No.4166 of 2022
31.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
