Allowed

Bakasubramaniyan v. Poonusamy (Died)

Madras HC20 Mar 2018CRP(MD)/568/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, under Article 227, directed the District Munsif, Palani to dispose of a pending execution application in a partition suit within two months without issuing notice to respondents.

What did the court decide?

The District Munsif, Palani is directed to dispose of E.A.No.132 of 2017 within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Bakasubramaniyan Vs Poonusamy (Died) — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.03.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶3

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.568 of 2018

¶4

Balasubramaniyan .. Petitioner/ Petitioner/Petitioner/4th defendant

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.Ponnusamy (died) 2.Gandhimathi 3.Abi Chitra ..Respondent /Respondent / Respondent /Plaintiff 4.Chellappan 5.Rathinasamy 6.Thandautham 7.Chellammal 8.Gomalavalli 9.Mangalam 10.Saraswathi @ Usha 11.Muthusamy Naickar 12.Thuraisamy Naickar 13.Thandapany 14.Subramaniyan Chettiar 15.Velathal 16.Babu 17.Balan 18.Boss

¶7

..Respondents /Respondents /Respondents /Defendants

¶8

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned District Munsif, Palani to dispose of the E.A.No.132 of 2017 in E.P. No.86 of 2008 in O.S.No.53 of 1977, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Senthilkumar

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned District Munsif, Palani to dispose of the E.A.No.132 of 2017 in E.P. No.86 of 2008 in O.S.No.53 of 1977, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶12

The petitioner would submit that the suit in O.S.No.53 of 1977 was filed for the relief of partition and the same was decreed on 16.03.1979, declaring that the petitioner herein, is entitled to 1/9th share in the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1209 of 1991 for final decree and the same was allowed on 25.03.1996, allotting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Execution Petition mentioned property, towards his share. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an Execution petition in

¶13

¶14

E.P.No.86 of 2008 and the same was allowed and delivery was ordered on 03.09.2015. Against the said order, the respondents have not filed any appeal and the said order has become final. At the time of passing the final decree, the execution petition mentioned property was a vacant site. Hence, the respondents are bound to deliver the vacant possession to the petitioner.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court Ameen, returned the warrant stating that there is a building and electricity connection in the schedule mentioned property. Hence, the petitioner is unable to take possession of the property. Therefore, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application in E.A.No.132 of 2017 for demolishing the entire building including the stair case, which is situated in the execution petition mentioned property. According to the petitioner, the above E.A.No.132 of 2017 is posted for orders and for the past five months, the same is continuously adjourned without any progress and therefore, the petitioner has come up with this civil revision petition for the aforesaid prayer.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

Since the case is for a limited relief of early disposal, no notice is necessary to the respondents.

¶18

A perusal of the 'B' Diary extract would go to show that as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case has been posted for orders on 28.02.2018. Therefore, this Court, without going into the merits of the allegation raised by the revision petitioner, is inclined to direct the Court below to dispose of the petition in E.A.No.132 of 2017 in E.P. No.86 of 2008 in O.S.No.53 of 1977, within a stipulated period.

¶19

In view of the above, the learned District Munsif, Palani, is directed to dispose of the petition in E.A.No.132 of 2017 in E.P. No.86 of 2008 in O.S.No.53 of 1977, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No

¶21

costs.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The District Munsif, Palani. +One cc to Mr.B.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.56445 rm https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RL/3C/2P/KK/SAR4/6/4/2018 C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.568 of 2018 20.03.2018

Bakasubramaniyan v. Poonusamy (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bakasubramaniyan v. Poonusamy (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Periyasamy, Vs Kaliammal

Birundha Vs Surili Vellammal

V.Perumal, S/O.Vellaya Konar Vs Maruthaiappan

Vijay Chakkaravarthi Vs Saroja W/O. Ponnusamy

Rajalakshmi Vs Muthukrishnan

P.Sendoori Vs M.Murali