In a revision petition under Article 227, the Madras High Court addressed the six-year delay in an execution petition caused by mechanical adjournments. The Court directed the lower court to dispose of the matter within six months.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed; the Principal Sub Judge is directed to dispose of E.P.No.7 of 2010 within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2017
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam
C.R.P.(PD) No.131 of 2014
...Revision Petitioners
Vs.
Kaliyaperumal
...Respondent
Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the frequent adjournments granted in E.P.No.7 of 2010, in O.S.No.144 of 1985, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram.
For Revision Petitioners
For Respondent
: Mr.T.Sezhian : Mr.C.Prabakaran
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.144 of 1985, seeking for earlier disposal of the Execution Petition filed
by them in E.P.No.7 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram.
2
3
went upto Supreme Court, a complete adjudication on the issues were over, the Trial Court ought to have disposed of E.P.No.7 of 2010 on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest point of time, but, it is pending for the past six years, without any progress. The endorsements made in the docket sheet relating to E.P.No.7 of 2010 filed in support of this Civil Revision Petition shows that, repeated adjournments were given without substantiating any reason. This Court is inclined to observe that, the practice of granting mechanical adjournments without assigning proper reasons by the Trial Court should be deprecated and the Courts must be cautious, while granting repeated adjournments without any valid reasons. Adjournments can never be granted as a matter of routine, and it has to be granted on reasons. The suit was initially filed in the year, 1985 and the matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and it attained finality in the year 2009. Subsequently, Execution Petition was filed in the year, 2010, but, the same is pending for more than six years. Such being the factum of the case, this Court is inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition with a direction, as prayed for by the revision petitioners.
4
possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respective counsels undertake that their parties will cooperate for the early disposal of E.P.No.7 of 2010, before the Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram.
costs.
09.02.2017
sd
To
The Principal Sub Judge,
Villupuram.
5
S.M.Subramaniam, J.
sd
C.R.P.(PD) No.131 of 2014
09.02.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court should be directed to dispose of the pending execution petition without further delay due to mechanical adjournments.
Whether repeated adjournments without assigning proper reasons by the Trial Court should be deprecated.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajagopal
Sarangapani
Kaliyaperumal
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
