Madras High Court
M.D.Parvathi vs M.Vijayam on 15 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.25920 of 2019
M.D.Parvathi .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.M.Vijayam
2.LIC Housing Finance Limited,
Represented by its Manager,
1st Floor, Tri Star Towers, 657,
Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore – 37. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the order in E.P.No.76 of 2018 in
O.S.No.129 of 2010, dated 26.09.2019 passed by the learned Subordinate
Judge at Coonoor.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Gobinath (for R1)
: No Appearance (for R2)
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed in
E.P.No.76 of 2018, dated 26.09.2019.
2. The petitioner before me is a judgment debtor. Originally
O.S.No.129 of 2010, a suit for specific performance was filed before the
Sub-Court at Nilgris. The said suit was dismissed in and by way of
Judgment, dated 28.11.2012. Aggrieved over the same, 1st appeal was
preferred in A.S.No.03 of 2013. The said 1st appeal was dismissed. The
relief sought for was specific performance or to grant an alternative relief
of recovery of amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) at the
rate of 6% per annum. In order to recover the money under the decree,
the respondents filed E.P.No.76 of 2018. The Execution Petition was
ordered against which the present revision arises.
3. Heard Mr.B.Sundarapandiyan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.T.Gobinath, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent and I have carefully perused the records.
4. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the Civil Revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
Petitioner that as against the Judgment in A.S.No.3 of 2013, he has
preferred a second appeal with delay in the year 2019 and notice has
been ordered in the second appeal. He wants me to post the revision
along with the second appeal. He also submits that he has paid 50% of
the decree amount as directed in the interim order. The learned counsel
for the respondent submits that there is no stay in the second appeal and
therefore, he is entitled to execute the decree.
5. As per Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if there
is a petition to condone the delay, it does not operate as a stay of decree. I
have to take note of the fact that the Execution petition was filed in 2018
whereas the second appeal was filed only in the year 2019. As on today,
there is no impediment for the executing Court to attach the property for
the amount which remains to be paid. The decree of the Court has to be
honoured. In case the appeal is allowed, the petitioner is always entitled
to claim restitution.
6. In fine, there will be no impediment for the executing Court to
execute the decree. The 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
amount which has been deposited by the petitioner as a condition in
interim order pursuant to the order of this Court.
7. I do not find any grounds to entertain this revision. Therefore,
the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
VEDA/MKN2
To
The Subordinate Judge, Coonoor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
VEDA/MKN2
C.R.P.No.3923 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.25920 of 2019
15.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
