This High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 challenging an order in an execution petition, holding that the plea of limitation raised for the first time in the revision was not maintainable.
Revised Cm. Petition dismissed; associated Miscellaneous Petition closed.
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: 15.11.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP (NPD) No. 3260 of 2016
and
CMP No.16508 of 2016
Dhanabal .. Petitioner
Vs
E. Jayaraman .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and final order dated 1.6.2015 made in E.P. No. 111 of 2012 in O.S. No.2125 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioner : Ms. Zeenath Begum For Respondent : Mr. T.L. Thirumalaisamy
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and final
order dated 1.6.2015 made in E.P. No. 111 of 2012 in O.S. No.2125 of
1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem.
2
the respondent herein filed REP No.111 of 2012, for execution of the decree dated 04.11.2003, passed in O.S. No.2125 of 1996. According to the petitioner, the said suit was decreed on 04.11.2003 and the present execution petition has been filed during the year 2012. Therefore, the said execution petition is barred by limitation. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is some discrepancy in the suit property filed in the execution petition. On the aforesaid grounds, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
3
31.08.2009. Therefore, the said Execution Petition is within the time
limit. In so far as the description of the property is concerned, it is for
the petitioner to make his objection before the court below.
the plea that the execution proceedings is barred by limitation, before
the trial court and only in the revision petition, the said point has been
raised. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the legal issue can be raised at any stage, even before this Court. The said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, raising
a plea cannot be entertained and hence there is no warrant to interfere
with the order passed by the trial court. However, as far as the relief prayed, with regard to the description of property, the petitioner can file
appropriate application before the trial court, to raise his objections.
4
court below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem, on 1.6.2015 in E.P. No. 111 of 2012 in O.S. No.2125 of 1996.
5
D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,
avr
CRP (NPD) No. 3260 of 2016
and
CMP No.16508 of 2016
15.11.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside an order dismissing a revision petition challenging an execution petition barred by limitation and property description discrepancies.
Whether a plea of limitation barred in trial court can be raised for the first time in a civil revision petition.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dhanabal
E. Jayaraman
D. KRISHNAKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
