Dismissed

V.Boopathy v. K.a.Sankaran

Madras HC6 Feb 2018REV.APPL/19/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application, a decree holder sought protection for his share in suit property against an order directing early disposal of execution proceedings. The High Court held the order was limited in scope, did not decide substantive rights, and accordingly dismissed the review application.

What did the court decide?

The review application and connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed with no costs.

V.Boopathy Vs K.a.Sankaran — Partition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 06.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

Review Application No.19 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.2112 of 2018
V. Boopathy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. K.A.Sankaran
2. Periyathambi
3. Govindan
4. Subbramani
5. Raman ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 22.09.2017 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3386 of 2017 passed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Poorima For Respondents : Mr.A.E.Ravichandran

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated

¶11

22.09.2017 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3386 of 2017.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

The Revision Petitioner is one of the decree-holders in the suit in O.S.No.261 of 1977 for partition and recovery of possession. He sought to execute the decree. Since the proceedings were protracted, he filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3386 of 2017 for early disposal of the Execution Proceedings in R.E.P.No.312 of 1997 and this Court, considering the age of the Revision Petitioner and time consuming procedure, given a direction to the Execution Court to dispose of the execution proceedings within a period of three months.

¶15

In this present review application, one among the remaining decree holders seeks that protection should be given to his share in the suit property. This Court, considering the age of the parties, given a direction for early disposal and the directions given will not defeat the rights of the other decree holders. Once recovery of possession of the suit property is taken, the decree holders can work out their remedy in the manner known to law. The scope of the order is very limited and it does not decide the rights of the decree holders.

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

Therefore, the Review Application is not sustainable and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

06.02.2018
Note: Issue order copy on 07.02.2018
asi
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Krishnagiri.

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

¶22

M. GOVINDARAJ, J.

¶23

asi
Review Application No.19 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.2112 of 2018

¶24

06.02.2018

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.Boopathy v. K.a.Sankaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Boopathy v. K.a.Sankaran

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

A.G.Syed Mohideen Vs the Tamil Nadu Chief

A.G.Syed Mohideen Vs the Tamil Nadu Chief

A.G.Syed Mohideen Vs the Tamil Nadu Chief

S.Mahalingam Vs the Tamilnadu Chief Revenue

V.Rajendran Vs the Chief Controlling Revenue

S. Varadharajan Vs the Inspector General of the