Dismissed

R.Iyyappan v. Arulmigu Venkeeswarar

Madras HC12 Aug 2013CRP/2785/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a Civil Revision Petition as clearly not maintainable against an order under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The court held that such an order amounts to a decree, making an appeal under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC the proper remedy.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty granted to file appeal. Certified copy directed to be returned.

R.Iyyappan Vs Arulmigu Venkeeswarar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 12.08.2013

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

C.R.P.No.2785 of 2013 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶7

1.R.Iyyappan 2.R.Balachandran 3.R.Saravanan 4.Gowrilakshmi ... Petitioners -vs-

¶8

1.Arulmigu Venkeeswarar Alagarperumal & Nagathamman Devasthanam, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. 2.R.Raji ... Respondents

¶9

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order and decreetal order dated 20.06.2013 made in M.P.No.229 of 2010 in E.P.No.20 of 2005 in Ejt.Suit No.44 of 1993 passed by the learned Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed by the Revision Petitioners herein

¶10

For Petitioners : M/S S.Kanmani Annamalai ORDER

¶11

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court in M.P.No.229 of 2010 in E.P.No.20 of 2005 in Ejt.Suit No.44 of 1993, wherein and whereby the application filed by the petitioners/third parties under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC came to be rejected.

¶12

2.The petitioners as third parties filed the above application before the Court below to adjudicate their claim in the suit property and to declare that they are not liable to be dispossessed from the same. The said application was contested by the respondents and consequently after elaborate discussion of facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below has rejected the claim of the petitioners as not acceptable one. Thus the claim of the petitioners have been adjudicated upon by the Court below under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. If any such adjudication is made, it is to be treated as a decree and

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

consequently only an appeal would lie against such decree passed by the Court below as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 103 CPC. Accordingly, I find that the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has to file only an appeal as against the order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks liberty to file such an appeal. Needless to say that the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal as against the said order in the manner known to law and this dismissal of Civil Revision Petition as not maintainable would not stand in the way of filing such appeal. The Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order.

¶16

4.With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar cse To The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶18

+1cc to M/s.S.Kanmani Annamalai , Advocate SR.No.42262 SP(CO) ka 29/08 C.R.P.No.2785 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 12.08.2013

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

R.Iyyappan v. Arulmigu Venkeeswarar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Iyyappan v. Arulmigu Venkeeswarar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periammal Vs a.Mani

G.Subramanian Vs S.v.Yuvaraj Kumar

T.K.Baby Ammal, Vs Government of Tn.

T.P.Ranganahan Vs Manjini

Prakash Babu Vs Sivasamy Nadar

N.R.Vasudevan Vs a.Vadivammal