Allowed

Unnamalai v. Theerthagiri

Madras HC23 Oct 2019CRP/3023/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order dismissing an execution petition where the decree holder admitted possession. The matter was remitted to the Execution Court for fresh consideration as the evidence of possession by the decree holder was deemed unacceptable.

What did the court decide?

The order in R.E.P. No.21 of 2008 is set aside and the matter remitted to the District Munsif Court, Harur, for fresh consideration on merits.

Unnamalai Vs Theerthagiri — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P. (NPD) No.3023 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 23.10.2019

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY

¶6

C.R.P. (NPD) No.3023 of 2012
Unnamalai ... Revision Petitioner
Vs.
1.Theerthagiri
2.Chinnapillai
3.Elatchumanan
4.Theerthagiri
5.Kollanthai
6.Palllani ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13.10.2009 passed in R.E.P. No.21 of 2008 in O.S.No.366 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.C.Sriranjani For Respondents : No appearance O R D E R

¶9

Challenging the order passed in R.E.P. No.21 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur, the Decree Holder has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 4

¶11

C.R.P. (NPD) No.3023 of 2012

¶12

2.The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.366 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Harur, for declaration and for recovery of possession. The trial Court, by its judgment and decree dated 07.12.2005, decreed the suit ex parte. Pursuant to the decree granted in O.S.No.366 of 2002, the petitioner filed an execution petition in R.E.P. No.21 of 2008 for taking

¶13

possession of the property.

¶14

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

¶15

respondents have not filed any application to set aside the ex parte decree, nor have they filed any appeal as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.366 of 2002 and that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.366 of 2002 have become final.

¶16

4.In the execution petition, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and

¶17

in her evidence, she has deposed that, she is in possession of the property. Considering the evidence let in by the petitioner to the effect that she was in possession of the property, the Execution Court dismissed the execution petition.

¶18

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an illiterate woman and without knowing the consequence, she

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 4

¶20

C.R.P. (NPD) No.3023 of 2012

¶21

had deposed that she was in possession of the property. Further, the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner, having filed an execution petition for taking possession of the property, would not have deposed that she was in possession of the property.

¶22

6.It is not in dispute that the decree passed in O.S.No.366 of 2002 has become final. When the petitioner/Decree Holder has filed an execution petition to execute the decree, there is no necessity for her to state that she is in possession of the property. If the petitioner is in possession of the property, she need not have filed the execution petition at all. Therefore, the evidence let in by her stating that she was in possession of the property need not be given any credence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, in order to give one more opportunity to the parties, the order passed by the Execution Court can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back to the Execution Court for fresh consideration.

¶23

7.For the reasons stated above, the order in R.E.P. No.21 of 2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Munsif Court, Harur, for fresh consideration. The District Munsif, Harur, is directed to decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 4

¶25

C.R.P. (NPD) No.3023 of 2012

¶26

mkn

¶27

M. DURAISWAMY, J.

¶28

8.With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No

¶29

costs.
23.10.2019
mkn
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
The District Munsif,
Harur.

¶30

C.R.P. (NPD) No.3023 of 2012

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 4

Unnamalai v. Theerthagiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnamalai v. Theerthagiri

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

K. Duraisamy Vs the Registrar of

M.Natesan Vs the Managing Director

N. Anandapadmanaban Vs the Managing Director

P.Vetrivel Vs the Superintendent

T.v.Prabhakar Vs C.M.W.S..S.B

Subramaniyam Mudaliyar Vs Muthukumaran