Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2018 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 March, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.205 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.205 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1257 of 2021
Selvaraj, S/o.Vellaichamy .. Petitioner
Versus
Rajendran, S/o.Murugan .. Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the order and decree
dated 17.03.2020, made in E.P.No.62 of 2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2014, on the file of the
Additional District Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
ORDER
Though this case came up for admission on 15.02.2021 and thereafter, it has
been adjourned from time to time, so far, notice has not been ordered.
2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decree
dated 17.03.2020, made in E.P.No.62 of 2018 in O.S.No.33 of 2014, on the file of the
Additional District Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District, which was decreed on
31.10.2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.205 of 2021
3. The specific case of the petitioner/defendant is that the respondent/plaintiff
[decree holder] had filed I.A.No.96 of 2014 for attachment of the property before
judgment. However, the property was sold to one Sivakumar. It is the further case of
the petitioner that the respondent unsuccessfully challenged the order dated
03.11.2015, made in I.A.No.96 of 2014, in C.R.P.(MD)No.505 of 2016. It is
submitted that the same property has now been ordered to be attached.
4. There is no merit in the present case as the suit has been decreed on
31.10.2017 and a sale has been effected by the petitioner to the said Sivakumar
during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.33 of 2014, on the file of the Additional
District Court, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
5. The rights of the respondent has been attempted to be defeated by making
sale during the pendency of the suit even though the respondent had filed I.A.No.96
of 2014 for attachment of the property before judgment. In any event, the petitioner
having sold the property to the said Sivakumar, has no rights over the property and
the person, who can complain is only the subsequent purchaser/alienee, namely,
Sivakumar. In the E.P. proceedings, it is for the said Sivakumar to move appropriate
proceedings for raising objection to the execution of the decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.205 of 2021
6. This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observation.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes/No 07.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
To
The Additional District Judge,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.205 of 2021
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.205 of 2021
07.03.2023
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!