G.Ramu vs Jawadu Hill Teak & Agri ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8365 Mad

                                                                              CRP(NPD)No.1810 of 2016


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 14.07.2023

                                                       CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                              C.R.P.(NPD)No.1810 of 2016
                                              and C.M.P.No.9467 of 2016


           G.Ramu                                                               .. Petitioner

                                                         Vs.




           Jawadu Hill Teak & Agri Horticultural
             Farms Private Limited
           Represented by its Director M.Shanmugam
           Nos.10 & 11, Radha Krishna Nagar
           Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.                                        ... Respondent


           Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure

           Code against the fair and decretal order dated 18.03.2016 made in E.P.No.9 of 2015 in

           O.S.No.2876 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court at

           Vaniyambadi.



                                      For Petitioner   : Mr.S.Arivazhagan

                                      For Respondent   : Mr.K.Rajasekaran

                                                       ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD)No.1810 of 2016

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the

respondent.

2.The revision arises against an order passed under Order XXI Rule 32 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. Under the said provision, there must be a specific finding

that despite an opportunity given to the judgment debtor to obey the decree, he had

wilfully disobeyed the same.

3. The civil revision petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the

decree holder. Here is the case, where the property is situated in Jawadu Hills in the

Vellore District. The decree holder obtained a decree against the civil revision

petitioner for bare injunction. The said suit O.S.No.2876 of 2005 was filed before the

XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. It ended in an exparte decree on 22.11.2006.

In order to enforce the said decree, R.E.P.No.9 of 2015 was filed by the decree holder

before the District Munsif Court at Vaniyambadi.

4. It is the case of the judgment debtor/civil revision petitioner that he has not

taken possession of the property after the decree had been passed, but has been in

possession and enjoyment of the property from the beginning. The learned trial Judge

allowed the execution petition, against which the present revision has been presented https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD)No.1810 of 2016

by the judgment debtor.

5. As premised above, it is the duty of the Court while disposing of an

application under Order XXI Rule 32 of C.P.C., to give a specific finding that the

judgment debtor had an opportunity to comply with the decree and despite such

opportunity, he wilfully disobeyed the same. This is the condition precedent for

invoking Order XXI Rule 32(1) of C.P.C. The learned Judge has allowed the

execution petition without giving such a finding. Therefore, I am inclined to set aside

the order passed in R.E.P.No.9 of 2015 in O.S.No.2876 of 2005 and remit the matter

to the Additional District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi. The decree being of the year

2005, the learned Additional District Munsif, Vaniyambadi, is requested to give

priority to the execution petition. The learned Judge need not record fresh evidence or

receive fresh documents from the parties. Evidence already recorded may be perused

and appropriate orders be passed. The matter is sent back to the Court below only for

the purpose of giving a finding as to whether the decree holder has shown that the

judgment debtor has violated the decree.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor/civil revision petitioner

would argue that the decree being exparte decree enforceability is an issue. Even an

exparte decree is enforceable and the same is akin to a contested decree. Therefore,

the only purpose of remand is to find out whether there is any wilful disobedience or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD)No.1810 of 2016

not.

7. In fine,

(i) With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.

(ii) E.P.No.9 of 2015 is restored to the file of the learned District Munsif at

Vaniyambadi.

(ii) The learned Additional District Munsif, Vaniyambadi, is requested to

dispose of the execution petition on or before 31.10.2023.

(iii) Both the parties shall co-operate with the Executing Court for the purpose

of deciding the issue. In case, the Executing Court feels that either party is not co-

operating for the purpose of arguments, it shall proceed further and pass orders. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

14.07.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No

Note:Issue order copy on 18.07.2023

kj

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(NPD)No.1810 of 2016

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

Kj To

The Additional District Munsif, Vaniyambadi.

C.R.P.(NPD)No.1810 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.9467 of 2016

14.07.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis