Madras High Court
Arulmigu Uchi Pillaiyarkoil vs T.G.Chandrapandiyan on 30 October, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 30.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD) No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.7286 of 2018
Arulmigu Uchi Pillaiyarkoil,
Kumbakonam by its Executive Officer,
S.Nirmaladevi ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.G.Chandrapandiyan
2.T.G.Thulasiraman
3.T.G.Balamurali
Thangarasu(died)
4.Kousalya
5.Bhoopalan
6.Suresh
7.Vijaya
8.Anusya ...Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the same
fair and decreetal order dated 07.04.2018 made in E.A.No.115 of
2011 in E.P.No.25 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam and allow this
revision with costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.G.Mohan Kumar
For R-4 to R-8 : No Appearance
ORDER
The revision petitioner, aggrieved by dismissal of this
claim petition in E.A.No.115 of 2011 in E.P.No.25 of 2008 in
R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller cum the
Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, has preferred the
present Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
2. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the revision
petitioner / Temple is the owner of the property, which is the subject
matter of R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003, before the learned Principal District
Munsif, Kumbakonam. The said R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 has been
filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as decree-holders to recover the
vacant possession from respondent Nos.5 to 9 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of
2003, who are the judgment-debtors / tenants under respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
3. It is the case of the revision petitioner / Temple that
the revision petitioner / Temple is the owner of the property and the
petitioners in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 have no right to claim any title
to the said property. It is also the case of the revision petitioner /
Temple that they have already filed O.S.No.29 of 2008 before the
learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and the said
suit has been decreed on 17.09.2019. It is not known as to whether
the said Decree has been challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Be
that as it may, the execution proceedings in E.P.No.25 of 2008 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
filed to execute the order of eviction in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 filed
by respondent Nos.1 to 3 against respondent Nos.4 to 9 claiming
respondent Nos.4 to 9 to be their tenants. The Court below has
elaborately discussed the rival contentions put forth by the revision
petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 and ultimately, the trial
Court has dismissed the claim petition filed by the revision
petitioner on the ground that they have not proved their right or
interest over the petition property and therefore, for want of
sufficient oral and documentary evidence, the application was
dismissed.
4. Pending the revision, it is brought to the notice of this
Court that the suit filed by the Temple as against respondent Nos.1
to 3 and the tenants came to be decided. On perusal of the said
Judgment and Decree, I find that the suit has been filed for declaring
the Temple’s rights over the suit property which is the petition
premises involved in the rent control proceedings as well as in the
suit. Not only are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein parties, but also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
the tenants, who are the respondents in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 and
also parties in the said suit. Ultimately, the Trial Court has decreed
the suit declaring the Temple to be the owner of the property and
also consequently, directed the defendants 5 to 9, who are the tenants
to pay rents to the plaintiff / Temple.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 3 is unable to readily inform the Court as to whether any appeal
has been preferred against the said Judgment and Decree in
O.S.No.29 of 2008. However, a competent Civil Court has declared
the right of the revision petitioner, who filed the claim petition in the
E.P. proceedings before the Rent Control Court.
6. In view of the said subsequent development, I am of
the opinion that the Temple is a proper and necessary party and their
claim is also to be enquired into under the provision of Order 21 of
Code of Civil Procedure.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 3 would submit that though the original claim petition was filed
invoking Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C., pending further proceedings, the
revision petitioner has chosen to voluntarily amend the said
provision from Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. to Section 47 and 151
C.P.C. which was also allowed by the Executing Court by an order
dated 19.07.2017. Unfortunately, the Executing Court has proceeded
to decide the said application under Section 47 r/w 151 C.P.C and
ultimately, held it to be not maintainable. From a reading of the case
advanced by the revision petitioner, it is clear that being a third party
to the proceedings, the Temple cannot invoke Section 47 C.P.C.. The
Executing Court has, therefore, committed an error, first of all, in
allowing the amendment application and permitting the revision
petitioner to invoke Section 47 and 151 C.P.C. In any event, in view
of the subsequent development, viz., the Decree passed by the Civil
Court in O.S.No.29 of 2008, the trial Court having declared the
revision petitioner to be the owner, not only the site, but also the
building and also having consequently, directed the tenants, who are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
the respondents in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2003 and judgment-debtors in
E.P.No.25 of 2008 to pay rents to the Temple, the Temple is entitled
to resist execution of the Decree in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3.
8. I find that the originally applied provision viz., Order
21 Rule 58 C.P.C., as well as Section 47 and 151 C.P.C.,
subsequently amended, would not come to the aid of the revision
petitioner. Firstly, Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. only deals only with the
attachment of property. Here, there is no attachment of property
involved. Section 47 C.P.C. also cannot be invoked by the revision
petitioner, since the revision petitioner was not the sufferer of a
decree in the rent control proceedings, which admittedly came up to
this Court by way of revision. The proper remedy only is to invoke
under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. and get the claim attached under
Order 21 Rule 98 C.P.C.
9. In view of the above and also taking into account the
subsequent development, viz., the Judgment and Decree passed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
O.S.No.29 of 2008, dated 17.09.2019, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed, by giving liberty to the revision petitioner to take out the
appropriate application before the Executing Court. If the revision
petitioner takes out necessary application under Order 21 Rule 97
C.P.C., within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, the Executing Court shall entertain the same and
proceed further in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.10.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
tsg
To
1.The Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.
2.The Record Keeper,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
P.B.BALAJI, J.
tsg
C.R.P(MD) No.1664 of 2018 (NPD)
30.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
