Partly allowed

Aps Napis Banu v. a.L.Tajuddin

Madras HC29 Apr 2019CRP(MD)/280/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision before the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), it was held that the sale of the subject property had been purposefully delayed to defeat the respondents. The court directed the revision petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 to the credit of the trial court within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 50,00,000 to the credit of O.S.No.2246 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Thiruchirapalli, on or before 25.03.2019.

Aps Napis Banu Vs a.L.Tajuddin — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.S.SUNDAR

¶6

CRP(MD) No.280 of 2013
APS NAPIS BANU ... PETITIONER/ 3 rd RESPONDENT/
3 rd DEFENDANT
Vs
1 A.L.TAJUDDIN ... RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER/
7 th PLAINTIFF
2 MAMAJI GANI
ZABUNNISSA BEGUM(DIED)
3.MURUGAYYA MUTHIRIYAR ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/
DEFENDANTS
4 JOSEPH ALBERT
SAVARIMUTHU PILLAI(DIED)
HABEEDA BIBI(DIED)
5.M.PARAMASIVAM
6 M.SUBRAMANIAN
7 M.THANGARAJ
8 MARY AMMAL
9 MALULVI M.ABDUL NAZEER
10 ABDUL RAZACK ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/
DEFENDANTS
(RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 WERE SET EXPARTE
IN THE COURT BELOW AND NO NOTICE NEED
BE SENT TO THEM)

¶7

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 22/01/2013 made in I.A.no.1092 of 2011 in I.A.no.173 of 2005 in I.A.No.1645 of 1997 in O.S.No.2246of 1996 on the file fo the 1^st Additional Dsitrict Munsif https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Trichy.

¶8

¶9

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.C.JEGANATHAN, Advocate for M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES, for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-

¶10

It is now stated that one item of property, which is the subject of the revision petition had already been sold by the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-.

¶11

2.This Court, after hearing the parties, is convinced that the sale of property by public auction has been dragged on for no reason and the petitioner has purposely dragged on the proceedings, just to defeat the rights of the respondents in this civil revision petition. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to deposite a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the credit of O.S.No.2246 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Thiruchirapalli, on or before 25.03.2019.

¶12

3.Post the matter on 25.03.2019. sd/19/03/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE 1^st ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, TRICHY.

¶13

2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, TRICHY. +1. C.C. to M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.5324

¶14

MS/VR/SAR-1/25.03.2019/2P.4C

¶15

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

Aps Napis Banu v. a.L.Tajuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aps Napis Banu v. a.L.Tajuddin

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

Inbanathan Vs Lurthammal

Parvathi Vs Muthusamy

S.N.Aandamuthu, Vs Palanisamy Gounder

Mr. G. Krishnamoorthy Vs T.S. Rajadurai

K Govindarajan Vs Subramaniam

Kv Sampath Kumar Vs R. Varadharajan