Dismissed

Arumugam Gandhi (Died) v. Peter

Madras HC27 Jun 2017CRP(MD)/2146/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the execution court's dismissal of a stay application. The petitioners, claiming third-party interest and heirs of a deceased father, sought to stay delivery of possession until a partition suit was disposed of. The High Court rejected the revision, upholding the execution court's finding that the stay was an attempt to drag proceed

What did the court decide?

Directing the execution court to deliver possession expeditiously; dismissing the civil revision petition and miscellaneous petition.

Arumugam Gandhi (Died) Vs Peter — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:27.06.2017 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2146 of 2014 and

¶5

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶6

1.Kanniammal

¶7

2.Durai @ Manimaran 3.Chellathambi

¶8

4.Subbulakshmi .. Petitioners

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Peter

¶11

2.Jermandass .. Respondents

¶12

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in E.A.No.82 of 2014 in E.A.No.316 of 2010 in E.P.No.240 of 2001 in O.S.No.187 of 1997 on the file of the 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dated 30.06.2014.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Manoharan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.R.V.Rajkumar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The revision petition is directed against the dismissal of the application filed by the revision petitioners in the execution petition. In the execution petition, the revision petitioners are the defendants. A suit was filed for recovery of money against the father of the revision petitioners. The said suit was decreed. After the decree, the suit property was brought for auction and one Mr.Peter has been the auction purchaser.

¶17

2.When an application for delivery of possession was filed by the auction purchaser, the revision petitioners have filed a counter affidavit stating that partition suit in O.S.No 454 of 2009 is pending and therefore, till the disposal of the partition suit, the delivery of possession should not be effected.

¶18

3.The Execution Court after going through the pleadings and documentary evidence has observed that in the suit for recovery of money, final decree was passed on 22.12.1999 and pursuant to the final decree, the suit property was brought to auction sale and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ third party interest come into play.

¶19

¶20

4.Whileso, the revision petitioners have taken out an application to stay the delivery of possession on the ground that Arumugam Gandhi, the father of the revision petitioners, died on 01.04.2003 leaving behind the revision petitioners as legal heirs and they have filed a partition suit which is pending in O.S.No.454 of 2009 and therefore, till the disposal of the partition suit, the delivery of possession should not be effected.

¶21

5.Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the partition suit in O.S.No.454 of 2009 is dismissed for non prosecution.

¶22

6.After going through the pleadings and documentary evidence, the Execution Court has held that the third party auction purchaser interest come into play, under such circumstances, the application filed by the legal heirs is only an attempt to drag on the proceedings. The Execution Court has rightly dismissed their application. This Court finds no reason to stay the delivery of possession till the disposal of O.S.No.454 of 2009.

¶23

5.Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. In the above said circumstances, the Execution Court is directed to dispose of E.A.No.82 of 2014 in E.A.No.316 of 2010 in E.P.No.240 of 2001 in O.S.No.187 of 1997 and deliver the possession, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 is also dismissed.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

To:

¶29

The 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.R.V.Rajkumar, Advocate Sr.No.62661 +1cc to Mr.R.Manoharan, Advocate Sr.No.62139

¶31

VSG/MRN

¶32

VB/JC/SAR2/07.07.2017/2P/4C

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2146 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 27.06.2017

Arumugam Gandhi (Died) v. Peter

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam Gandhi (Died) v. Peter

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

The Prince of Arcot Vs a. Sampath Raj

S.Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajan @ Kothanar Rajan, Vs the Inspector of Police

Ajay Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Prabakaran Vs R. Sreenivasan

Raja Vs Anton Sahaya Dinesh