The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a Docket order that directed delivery of property under a final decree. The Court found the impugned order consonant with law and noted the applicants could not seek stay after a long lapse of time.
No stay granted on execution proceedings; execution ordered as per final decree dated 23.11.2010.
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.
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.21650 of 2022
1.P.Eswari
2.P.Muruganantham
3.M.Radha
... Petitioners
Vs.
1.P.Balamani
2.R.Subramaniam
10.R.Vasanthamani
11.C.Durai 12.M.Muthulakshmi 13.M.Priya 14.M.Malar
... Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 14 are given up)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Docket order dated 09.12.2022 in
Page 1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
E.P.No.19 of 2018 in O.S.No.129 of 1990 on the file of the Distrit Munsif Court, Udumalpet.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj
ORDER
The Revision Petition has been filed against the Docket order dated 09.12.2022 in E.P.No.19 of 2018 in O.S.No.129 of 1990 on the file of the Distrit Munsif Court, Udumalpet.
decree, the said Paramasivam was set ex-parte in I.A.No.557 of 2004. However, the third defendant in the suit Mr.Subramaniam has filed a counter, stating that Subbathal had already executed a Settlement Deed in
Page 2 of 6
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
favour of Mr.Paramasivam, settling her 3 acres of land in the year 1998 itself. The trial Court passed final decree on 23.11.2010 erroneously. Paramasivam died in the year 2013. The revision petitioners were not aware of the proceedings instituted either in O.S.No.129 of 1990, A.S.No.195 of 1995 and the final decree in I.A.No.557 of 2004.
The petitioners had got a chance of restoring the appeal suit in A.S.No.190
Page 3 of 6
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
of 1997. Under those circumstances, the revision petitioners filed the
present Revision Petition to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.19 of 2018 in O.S.No.129 of 1990.
Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.12.2022
kak Index : Yes Speaking order To The Judge, Distrit Munsif Court, Udumalpet.
Page 5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.4148 of 2022
14.12.2022
Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the Docket order permitting execution of the final decree despite the applicants' lack of knowledge about the proceedings and lack of stay.
Whether the delay in filing the revision petition permits the applicants to seek a stay on execution proceedings.
Whether the High Court should have exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the Docket order in the execution petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Eswari
P.Muruganantham
M.Radha
P.Balamani
R.Subramaniam
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
