Allowed

N.v.Maria Arokia Rani v. Maria Arokia Raj

Madras HC8 Oct 2021CRP/2197/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Madras directed the Principal District Munsif Court at Alandur to dispose of a pending execution petition filed five years prior within two months of the order. The court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal District Munsif, Alandur to dispose of E.P.No.109 of 2016 within two months of receipt of the order.

N.v.Maria Arokia Rani Vs Maria Arokia Raj — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.No.2197 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.10.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.2197 of 2021
Mrs.N.V.Maria Arokia Rani ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Mr.Maria Arokia Raj
2.Mrs.S.Sujatha ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the Principal District Munsif Court at Alandur to dispose of the Execution Petition No.109 of 2016 in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015 within the time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan.

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This Petition is filed seeking for a direction to dispose the

¶11

E.P.No.109 of 2016 in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015 pending on the file of

¶12

Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

¶13

2.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶15

1/4

¶16

C.R.P.No.2197 of 2021

¶17

Petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015 under Sections 10 (3) (a) (i), 10 (2) (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960) and the exparte order of eviction was ordered on 10.08.2016. Then the Petitioner filed E.P.No.109 of 2016 and it is still pending. The First Respondent's wife filed obstruction Petition and it was allowed. Therefore, the Petitioner filed E.A.No.126 of 2019 for impleading her as Respondent in the Execution Petition. It is claimed that she ought to have been impleaded as Respondent in the R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015. Her claim that she ought to have been impleaded in the R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015 is not maintainable for the reason that her husband alone has entered into the tenancy agreement with the Petitioner.

¶18

3.Be that as it may, the Execution Petition is of the year 2016.

¶19

It is almost five years and still the Execution Petition is pending. Therefore, the Learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur is directed to dispose the E.P.No.109 of 2016 in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶21

2/4

¶22

C.R.P.No.2197 of 2021

¶23

4.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No

¶24

costs.
08.10.2021
ay
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
The Principal District Munsif,
Alandur.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶26

3/4

¶27

C.R.P.No.2197 of 2021

¶28

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

¶29

¶30

C.R.P.No.2197 of 2021

¶31

Dated:08.10.2021

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶33

4/4

N.v.Maria Arokia Rani v. Maria Arokia Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.Maria Arokia Rani v. Maria Arokia Raj

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

H.Vimal Chand Bathala Vs K.L.Kiran

N.Henry Vs Regional Transport Officer/Authority

Deepika @ Diyanah Vs Wahed Hussain

Svm. Seyed Ali Fathima Vs S.M.M.Seyed Ali Fatimamal

R.Janakiraman Vs C.B.M.Sakunthala Memorial Trust

J.Janaki Vs a.Senthil Kumar