Dismissed

S.Ulaganayagi v. Balasubramanian

Madras HC4 Jan 2022CRP/403/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order dismissing an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC is appealable under Order XXI Rule 103 CPC. Consequently, the Court ruled it cannot entertain a Civil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against such an order and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as it is not maintainable against an appealable order under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.

S.Ulaganayagi Vs Balasubramanian — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. (NPD) No.403 of 2021 and CMP No.3439 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.01.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.403 of 2021 and CMP No.3439 of 2021

¶7

S.Ulaganayagi

¶8

S.Balakrishnan 3. B.Punitha .. Petitioners

¶9

Vs. 1. Balasubramanian

¶10

Gnanasekaran

¶11

Karuppanna Gounder

¶12

Periyanachammal (Died)

¶13

Karuppasamy

¶14

Periyathal .. Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P. (NPD) No.403 of 2021 and CMP No.3439 of 2021

¶19

India, praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 04.11.2020 passed

¶20

in E.A.32 of 2013 in E.P.No.63 of 2008 in O.S.No.158 of 1996 on the file of

¶21

the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Kumara Devan

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The order challenged in this Revision is one dismissing an application

¶25

filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, obstructing execution of a decree passed in OS No.158 of 1996.

¶26

2. In view of the Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure

¶27

and order passed in an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is an appellable order and hence the Revision under

¶28

Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained.

¶29

3. Leaving it open to the petitioners to prefer an Appeal against the

¶30

order passed by the Trial Court in EA No.32 of 2013, this Revision is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶31

2/4

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P. (NPD) No.403 of 2021 and CMP No.3439 of 2021

¶34

No costs.

¶35

4. The pendency of the Civil Revision Petition shall be taken into account by the Appellate Court in considering the delay in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders of the Trial Court made in EA No.32 of 2013 to the counsel for the petitioners on 05.01.2022.

¶36

jv Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non Speaking Order

¶37

04.01.2022

¶38

Note : Issue order copy on 05.01.2022

¶39

¶40

The District Munsif, Dharapuram.

¶41

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

¶42

3/4

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P. (NPD) No.403 of 2021 and CMP No.3439 of 2021

¶45

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶46

¶47

Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.403 of 2021 and CMP No.3439 of 2021

¶48

04.01.2022

¶49

4/4

¶50

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

S.Ulaganayagi v. Balasubramanian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ulaganayagi v. Balasubramanian

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

Allimuthu Vs N.Krishnamoorthy @ Kesavan

Kavitha @ Keerthi Vs J.Suresh

S.Subbu Gounder Vs K.Nirmala

Rani Vs G.Kanmani

S.Deepikalakshmi Vs T.Rabindranath

Chitra Ammal Vs Anand