Disposed

Senguttuvan @ Mannangatti v. Vasantha Ammal

Madras HC17 Dec 2015CRP/4737/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The revision petitioner, a decree holder, challenged the return of an application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by the Principal District Munsif Court. The court directed the lower court to number the application, give notice to the decree holder, and dispose of it on merits within three weeks to avoid hardship.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, to number the unnumbered application, give notice to the decree holder, and dispose of the application on merits within three weeks.

Senguttuvan @ Mannangatti Vs Vasantha Ammal — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.12.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)No.4737 of 2015 &

¶7

M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶8

Senguttuvan (a) Mannangatti

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.Vasantha Ammal 2.Vanaroja 3.Senthilkumar

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the petition order dated 03.11.2015 passed in E.P.No.45 of 2015 in O.S.No.170 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Sr. Counsel for Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The 1^st judgment debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition challenging the return made by the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur returning the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner stating that the application is not maintainable.

¶18

Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Execution Court had returned the application raising an issue only with regard to maintainability of the application. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the decree holder can execute the decree for mandatory injunction after measurement made by the Advocate Commissioner. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that if the properties are not measured, the petitioner would be facing hardship and prejudice. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the Execution court may be directed to number the application and dispose of the same, within a stipulated time.

¶19

Having regard to the submission made by the learned Senior

¶20

Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, I direct the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, to number the unnumbered application

¶21

¶22

in E.A.... of 2015 in E.P.No.45 of 2015 in O.S.No.170 of 1998, if it is in order, and dispose of the application on merits and in accordance with law, after giving notice to the decree holder, within a period of three weeks from the date of numbering of the application.

¶23

With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

17.12.2015

¶25

Index : Yes/No Note : Issue copy of the order by 18.12.2015 Rj To

¶26

The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur Taluk, Villupuram District.

M. DURAISWAMY,J.,

C.R.P.(NPD)No.4737 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶31

17.12.2015

Senguttuvan @ Mannangatti v. Vasantha Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senguttuvan @ Mannangatti v. Vasantha Ammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishnan Vs P.Sankaranarayanan

P.Sarasagopal Vs S.Srinivasa Rao

T.A. Mahalakshmi Vs R. Sundarapandian

Caliber Valves Pvt.Ltd., Vs S.K.Malhotra, HUF

Sornambal Vs P. Kannagi

Tmt.Rajeswari Venkatesan Vs Dharmendra Yadav IAS