Madras High Court
Sivanandham vs Perumal on 30 September, 2024
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
C.R.P.No.3958 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.No.3958 of 2024
1. Sivanandham
2. Ravi
3. Sakthi ... Petitioners
Vs
Perumal ... Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
pleased to direct the lower court to speedily dispose off R.E.P.No.5 of 2011 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, within a short time frame.
For Petitioners : Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for a
direction to the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, for the speedy disposal of the
R.E.P.No.5 of 2011 in O.S.No.424 of 2004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioners'
father against the respondent/defendant in O.S.No.424 of 2004 before the District
Munsif Court, Dharmapuri, for specific performance for execution of the sale deed
in favour of the plaintiff based on the sale agreement dated 30.04.1998, was
decreed on 22.08.2005 after full fledged trial. Thereafter, the respondent had filed
the appeal suit in A.S.No.28 of 2006 and the appellate Court, had dismissed the
same on 16.08.2011. Meanwhile, after the death of the plaintiff, the petitioners and
their mother, as a legal heirs of the plaintiff, have filed an execution petition in
R.E.P.No.15 of 2011 before the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. While so, the
second appeal preferred by the respondent in S.A.No.1568 0f 2011 was also
dismissed by this Court on 10.04.2017 for non prosecution. Further, the
C.M.A.No.2 of 2018 filed by the respondent was also dismissed by the
Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri on 22.07.2022. Due to the petitions filed by the
respondent one after another, the execution petition is pending from the year of
2011. Thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the
petitioners had entered into a sale agreement with the respondent on 30.04.1998
and since the respondent did not come forward to register the sale agreement, the
petitioners' father had filed a suit in O.S.No.424 of 2004 before the District Munsif
Court, Dharmapuri, for specific performance and the same was decreed on
22.08.2005. Thereafter, both the first and second appeals filed by the respondent
against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.424 of 2004 were dismissed by
both the appellate Courts. He further submitted that no appeal has been preferred
by the respondent against the order passed by this Court in S.A.No.1568 0f 2011.
Meanwhile, after the demise of the plaintiff, the petitioners and their mother had
filed an execution petition in R.E.P.No.15 of 2011 before the District Munsif
Court, Dharmapuri and the same is pending from 2011.
4. He further submitted that the petitioners were directed to file the draft sale
deed and the stamp papers and the petitioners have produced the stamp papers
before the executing court on 10.04.2024 and the Court has also found it to be
correct, whereas, even thereafter, the execution petition has been adjourned to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
several dates. Hence, he seeks for a direction to the executing Court to dispose of
the Execution Petition filed by the petitioners within a specified time frame.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials
available on record.
6. On perusal of records, it is seen that the suit filed by the petitioners was
decreed in the year 2005 and despite the dismissal of the Second Appeal filed by
the respondent, the execution petition filed by the petitioners is pending from 2011.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and
Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, while dealing with the delay in the
execution proceedings have issued certain directions and also held that the
Executing Court must dispose of the Execution Proceedings within six months
from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in
writing for such delay.
7. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with a
direction to the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri, to dispose of the Execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Proceedings in R.E.P.No.5 of 2011, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
30.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ham
To
The District Munsif Court,
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
ham
30.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
