Madras High Court
R.Velladurai vs C.Tamil Selvi on 18 September, 2024
C.R.P.No.3481 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.No.3481 of 2024
and CMP No.18849 of 2024
R.Velladurai .... Petitioner
vs
1.C.Tamil Selvi
2.Ananda Kirubakaran ..... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code
against the fair and decreetal order dated 12.07.2024 made in E.A.No.6 of 2024
in E.A.No,688 of 2024 in E.P.No.840 of 2013 in O.S.No.7540 of 2000 on the file
of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Cour, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Umashankar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal
order dated 12.07.2024 made in E.A.No.6 of 2024 in E.A.No,688 of 2024 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.P.No.840 of 2013 in O.S.No.7540 of 2000 on the file of X Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the application filed seeking to condone the
delay and receive the additional documents in the execution petition.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.7540 of 2000, filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs, seeking for declaration declaring that the plaintiffs are the
absolute owners of the suit property and also for permanent injunction restraining
the defendants, their servants, agents or anybody claiming through them in any
manner either putting up any construction or proceeding with the further illegal
construction in the suit property. The suit came to be decreed on 25.04.2012
declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and also
directing the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to the
plaintiffs by demolishing and removing the unauthorised and illegal construction
put up by them in the suit property in two months.
3. The judgment and decree have not been set aside so far. While so, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed an execution petition in E.P.No.840 of 2013 on
28.01.2013. The petitioner/defendant had filed counter on 15.04.2014. The
petitioner/defendant filed an application in E.A.No.688 of 2014 under Section 47
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Civil Procedure Code to dismiss the Execution Petition No.840 of 2013 on the
ground that the decree passed in O.S.No.7540 of 2000 dated 24.05.2012 is null
and void and inexecutable under law .
4. The respondents/plaintiffs has filed a counter on 13.12.2014. While
E.A.No.688 of 2014 is pending, the revision petitioner/defendant had filed
E.A.No.6 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay in filing the following
documents:-
1. .. Aadhaar Card of Velladurai
2. 15.12.1999 Sale deed in favour of Velladurai
3. 15.12.1999 Sale deed in favour of Velladurai
4. 09.04.2007 Corporation of Chennai-Revenue Department Receipt in favour of
Velladurai.
5. 10.04.2007 Chennai Metro Water and Sewage Board Receipt in favour of
Velladurai.
6. 13.04.2007 Chennai Metro Water and Sewage Board Receipt in favour of
Velladurai.
7. 27.03.2013 Property tax receipt of Velladurai.
8. 16.04.2013 EB Receipt in favour of Velladurai.
9. 26.09.2020 Property Tax receipts in favour of Velladurai.
10. 16.02.2021 Revised Assessment Notice
11. ... EB Card in favour of Velladurai.
5. The Executing Court finding that the petition was filed to delay the E.P
proceedings, by order dated 12.07.2024 dismissed E.A.No.6 of 2024 with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the
respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders within two weeks. Challenging the order
dated 12.07.2024, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor would
submit that the property, in question, is a Government poramboke land and the
trial Court erred in granting a decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs/decree
holders. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents/plaintiffs claimed
ownership of the property based on a settlement deed, said to have been executed
by one Pachaimuthu in their favour, whereas, the wife and children of
Pachaimuthu vide two unregistered sale deeds dated 15.12.1999 had executed
settlement deeds in favour of the petitioner/defendant and those documents are
necessary to prove the case of the petitioner/defendant and since those documents
are misplaced and the petitioner was able to get those documents only pending
execution petition, he filed E.A.No.6 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay in
filing the documents, whereas, the executing Court had erroneously dismissed the
application apart from imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- and aggrieved over the same,
the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor has filed the above Civil Revision
Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders
would submit that excepting document Nos.1 to 3, all documents have already
been filed along with the application, filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure
Code and they are Revenue Receipt, Chennai Metro Water and Sewage Board
Receipt, Property tax receipts and EB Receipt and these documents cannot
confer any title on the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor. Apart from that the
petitioner has never pleaded anything either in the written statement or in the
counter filed in Execution Petition about the earlier sale deeds said to have been
executed by the wife and children of Pachaimuthu in favour of the
petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant is now attempting to introduce
unregistered sale deeds which cannot be permitted as per law and they have no
relevance to the present proceedings and though the claim of the
petitioner/defendant is that the property, in question, is a Government poramboke
land, the trial court, after full fledged trial, has held that the property belongs to
the grand father of the respondents/plaintiffs which was settled in favour of the
respondents/plaintiff and the judgment and decree have not been set aside till
date. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs further submits that
Execution Petition was filed in the year 2013 and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor has filed petitions one after another to delay
the execution proceedings and the executing court, rightly finding that the
petitioner has filed petitions one after another only to procrastinate the Execution
Proceedings, has dismissed the application with cost of Rs.10,000/- and the
revision has no merits and thereby is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. A perusal of records would show that the suit in O.S.No.7540 of 2000,
was decreed on 25.04.2012. Execution Petition was filed in the year 2013.
Neither in the written statement nor in the counter filed in the Execution Petition,
the revision petitioner has stated about the earlier unregistered sale deeds, said to
have been executed, in his favour by the wife and children of Pachaimuthu, who
is the grand father of the respondents/plaintiffs. In the opinion of the Court, the
petitioner/defendant is attempting to introduce a new case only to delay the
execution proceedings. I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed
by X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in E.A.No.6 of 2024 in
E.A.No.688 of 2024 in E.P.No.840 of 2013 in O.S.No.7540 of 2000 and thereby
the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. However, this Court feels that imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- is on
the higher side which can be modified as Rs.1,000/-
11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, the cost
of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner/defendant/judgment debtor to be paid to
the respondents/plaintiffs/decree holders is hereby modified as Rs.1,000/-(Rupees
one thousand only).
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.09.2024
sr
Index:yes/no
website:yes/no
To
The X Assistant Judge, City Civil Cour, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J,.
sr
18.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
