Dismissed

Pappa, W/O.Veeranan, v. S.Vijayaraman

Madras HC20 Aug 2019CRP(MD)/1571/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by a judgment debtor seeking to set aside an execution order attaching his pension. The court held the petition was infructuous as the decree had already been satisfied and the execution proceedings were closed.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed as infructuous; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Pappa, W/O.Veeranan, Vs S.Vijayaraman — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)(NPD)No.1571 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2019

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶5

C.R.P.(MD)(NPD)No.1571 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

Pappa

:Petitioner

vs.

1.S.Vijayaraman 2.The Assistant Educational Officer, Sempatty, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶10

3.The District Educational Officer, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District. :Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 09.03.2011 passed in E.P.No.22 of 2010 in O.S.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni.

¶12

For Petitioner :Mr.P.Vinith for Mr.R.Subramanian For R1 :No Appearance R2 and R3 : Given up

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.22 of 2010 in O.S.No.13 of 2008 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Theni, to attach the pension, gratuity and other retiremental benefits of the judgment debtor.

¶15

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, had already paid the amount to satisfy the entire decree. It is further stated that the execution petition has to be closed, in view of the satisfaction of the decree and that the civil revision petition has become infructuous. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

¶16

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

¶17

1/2

¶18

C.R.P.(MD)(NPD)No.1571 of 2011

¶19

3.In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

1.The Subordinate Judge, Theni.

¶26

2.The Assistant Educational Officer, Sempatty, Aathur Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶27

3.The District Educational Officer, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District.

¶28

+1 CC to M/s.R.SUBRAMANIAN, Advocate ( SR-82602[F] dated 21/08/2019 )

¶29

C.R.P.(MD)(NPD)No.1571 of 2011 20.08.2019

¶30

cmr MS/16.09.2019/2P.5C

¶31

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

¶32

2/2

Pappa, W/O.Veeranan, v. S.Vijayaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappa, W/O.Veeranan, v. S.Vijayaraman

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

Antonysamy @ Ariharan Vs Sundar

Kombaya Nadar Vs Arumugam Nadar

Haji M.M.Rafi,S/O.K.M.Sheriff Vs a.Jafar Ali,S/O.Abdul Kareem

Arunachalam Vs Seethalakshmi

Hari Krishnan Vs Aramvalarthammal @ Darmar

D.Uma Maheshwari Vs N.Thirunavakarasu