Dismissed

S.Sudhakhar v. the President, District

Madras HC19 Jun 2017WP/19302/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the admission of an execution petition despite the appeal against the impugned order not being numbered and still in the سر واليا (SR) stage. The Court held that mere pendency of an appeal is insufficient to reject the execution petition unless an interim order exists.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the Writ Petition challenging the order admitting the execution petition. No order as to costs.

S.Sudhakhar Vs the President, District — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

W.P.No.19302 of 2003

¶6

S.Sudhakhar ...Petitioner Vs. 1. The President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai-(North), R.K.Mutt Road, Ist Floor, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 2. The Chairman, The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, R.K.Mutt Road, IInd Floor, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. 3. A.R.Subramanian ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the entire records pertaining to the E.P.No.23 of 2003 in O.P.No.52 of 2002, dated 23.06.2003 pending on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same as illegal, perverse, nonapplication of mind and against the provision of Sections 24 and 25 of the Consumer Protection Act.

¶8

Challenging the order passed by the first respondent in E.P.No.23 of 2003 in O.P.No.52 of 2002, dated 23.06.2003, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶9

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

¶10

The contention of the petitioner is that aggrieved over the order of the first respondent passed in O.P.No.52 of 2002, he has filed an appeal before the second respondent. When the proceedings has not reached finality, the execution petition cannot be entertained.

¶11

It is settled law that mere pendency of an appeal cannot be a ground to reject the execution petition and unless an interim order is obtained in the appeal, the third respondent is entitled to file an Execution Petition. It is seen from the records even the appeal filed by the petitioner was not yet numbered and it was only in SR Stage.

¶12

In view of the above fact, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

¶13

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
rns / sm
To
1. The President
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Chennai-(North),
R.K.Mutt Road, Ist Floor,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Chairman,
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
R.K.Mutt Road, II nd Floor,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
+1cc to Mr.P.C.Harikumar, Advocate Sr. 42955
+1cc to Mr.Shivakumar, Advocate Sr. 43238

¶14

W.P.No.19302 of 2003

¶15

NMI(CO) VR(28/06/2017)

¶16

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

S.Sudhakhar v. the President, District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sudhakhar v. the President, District

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

R.Subitha Vs Panchayat Inspector cum

K.Ravikumar Vs the Charman, Vellalar Grama

K.Marimuthu Vs the Chairman, Vallalar Grama

M.Ganesan Vs the Special Commissioner &

R.Jothi Lakshmi Vs the Director of Government

G.Dhanapal Vs the Tahsildar