This common order addresses two civil revision petitions filed by Rukmaniammal urging the Principal Sub Court at Vridhachalam to expedite pending execution applications related to a decree in a property suit filed by her late husband.
Directed the Principal Sub Judge, Vridhachalam to dispose pending execution applications within two months from receipt of this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P.Nos.2198 & 2199 of 2021
Rukmaniammal ...Petitioner in both the Petitions
Vs 1.Dhandapani 2.Govindan 3.Shanmugam 4.Santhi 5.Minor Umamaheswari 6.Minor Gayathri 7.Minor Manoj (Respondents 5 to 7 are minors rep. by Court guardian T.Ananthan) 8.Vasanthi 9.Hemambujam 10.T.Renganathan 11.T.Kannan ...Respondents in both the Petitions
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the Principal Sub Court, Vridhachalam to dispose E.A.Nos.342 & 343 of 2016 in E.P.No.69 of 2016 in O.S.No.123 of 2004.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for Ms.R.Meenal.
C O M M O N O R D E R
C.R.P.No.2198 of 2021 and C.R.P.No.2199 of 2021 have been filed seeking direction to the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Vridhachalam to dispose the E.A.Nos.342 & 343 of 2016 respectively in E.P.No.69 of 2016 in O.S.No.123 of 2004.
2.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner's husband Thiruvengadathayangaar filed Suit in O.S.No.123 of 2004 seeking the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession, damages for use and occupation and for other reliefs. The Suit was decreed on 10.02.2011. The Appeal filed against the Judgment in A.S.No.69 of 2011 was also dismissed. Then the Petitioner filed E.P.No.69 of 2016 along with E.A.No.342 of 2016 for recognizing her as Legal
Representative of the deceased Thiruvengadathayangaar and continuing the execution proceedings. Similar application was filed for impleading Legal Representative of the deceased First Respondent Loganathan in E.A.No.343 of 2016.
3.It is further submitted that both the Applications are kept pending from the year 2016 without disposal. Therefore, these Petitions are filed seeking direction to dispose these Applications within a time to be fixed by this Court.
4.It is evident from the narrations of sequence of events that Suit was filed in the year 2004 for declaration of title, for recovery of possession and for other reliefs. The Suit was also decreed on 10.02.2011. It appears that the original decree holder and the First Respondent died. Therefore, E.A.No.342 of 2016 was filed for impleading the Legal Representative of the original decree holder and E.A.No.343 of 2016 was filed for impleading the Legal Representative of the deceased First Respondent.
5.It is submitted that the Applications are pending for enquiry. It is not known why these Applications are kept pending for five years without passing orders. Therefore, the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Vridhachalam is directed to dispose these Applications as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
6.Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ay To The Prinicipal Sub Court, Vridhachalam. Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras – 104.
+2ccs to M/s.R.Meenal, Advocate, S.R.No.52569,52570
C.R.P.Nos.2198 & 2199 of 2021
AD[co] NSK 02/11/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether direction could be issued to subordinate court to dispose pending execution applications within a specified time frame.
Rukmaniammal
Dhandapani
Govindan
Shanmugam
Santhi
Umamaheswari
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
