Dismissed

Manoranjitham v. M/S.Universal Fertilizer Corporation

Madras HC10 Jan 2022CRP/2917/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed against an executing court's order. The executing court had refused to appoint a Commissioner to note down machinery in eviction proceedings, viewing the request as a delay tactic. The revision was dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Manoranjitham Vs M/S.Universal Fertilizer Corporation — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2917 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.01.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2917 of 2021 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.20955 of 2021

Manoranjitham

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.M/s.Universal Fertilizer Corporation, A Registered Partnership Firm Rep by its Managing Partner

¶12

P.Vijay Nataraj S/o.Periyasamy Gounder, 418 A, Suramangalam Main Road, Pallipatty, Salem – 9.

¶13

2.Vimaladevi

¶14

3.Kavitha

¶15

4.Rajkumar .. Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated 23.07.2021 in REA.No.1 of 2019 in REA.No.53 of 2012 in REP.No.581 of 2011 in RCOP.No.41 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional District Munsif Court, Salem and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nalliyappan

¶18

Page No.1/4

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2917 of 2021

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Revision has been filed, by the judgment debtor, who is one of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, who had suffered an order of eviction under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the dismissal of the application seeking appointment of Commissioner to note down the existence of the machinery and to identify the rented premises.

¶23

2. The executing Court dismissed the same on the ground that such exercise cannot be carried out in the execution proceedings. It was also pointed out that there was no dispute regarding the identity of the property and if there is excess execution, it is always open to the petitioner to move the executing Court under the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶24

3. It is clear that the attempt to have an Advocate Commissioner appointed is only to delay execution. The learned IV Additional District Munsif has rightly concluded that the purpose for which the Commissioner

¶25

------------
Page No.2/4

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2917 of 2021

¶28

is sought for cannot be granted in execution proceedings. Hence, I do not

¶29

see any reason to interfere with the order of the executing Court.

¶30

4. Accordingly, this Revision fails and it is dismissed . No costs.

¶31

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

10.01.2022

¶33

dsa Index : No Speaking order

¶34

¶35

The IV Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

¶36

Page No.3/4

¶37

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

¶38

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2917 of 2021

¶39

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶40

dsa

¶41

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2917 of 2021

¶42

10.01.2022

¶43

Page No.4/4

¶44

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

Manoranjitham v. M/S.Universal Fertilizer Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjitham v. M/S.Universal Fertilizer Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathinammal Vs Rajendran

G.Yasodha Vs R.Umarani

C.R.Arun Pandian Vs a.Balasubramaniam

D.Chandrammal Vs P.Kalaiselvi

I.Akila Vs R.Karthikeyan

M. Narayana Reddy Vs G.R. Munivenkata Reddy