This Review Application sought to review an order dismissing a Civil Revision Petition. The High Court held that the question of violation of the decree should be decided by the Executing Court and disposed of the review.
Review Application dismissed; direction to Executing Court to dispose of the execution petition within three months.
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.
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)No.5988 of 2021
Mahalakshmi
... Review Petitioner
versus
... Respondents
Review Application filed under Sections 114 and Order 47 Rule (1) of C.P.C., to review the order dated 17.04.2021 passed in CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018.
For Review Petitioner : M/s.R.Janakiramulu For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh
1/6
ORDER
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
This Review Application is filed seeking to review the order dated 17.04.2021 passed in CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018.
2/6
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
the decree and put up a construction. Therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs 2 and 3 filed an Execution Petition. The review petitioner/2nd defendant also filed E.A.No.147 of 2012 to reject the Execution Petition that there is no mandatory injunction granted. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, by order dated 27.01.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the review petitioner has filed the above CRP(MD)No.1405 of 2018. This Court, on 17.04.2021, after considering the merits of the case, dismissed the Civil Revision Petition holding that there is no merit in the grounds raised in support of the Civil Revision Petition. Now, the review petitioner has filed the Review Application on the ground that she has not violated the decree passed in O.S.No.961 of 1996 and therefore, there is no necessity for filing the Execution Petition and hence, the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition has to be reviewed.
3/6
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
for the terms of compromise, has violated the same and the decree passed by the trial Court and put up the construction. Therefore, for removing the construction, the respondents/plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed the Execution Petition to take action based on the decree passed in O.S.No.961 of 1996.
4/6
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
he has not violated the conditions of the compromise memo and that
the reports of the Advocate Commissioner is in his favour.
6.Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to dwell into it. The review applicant can very well agitate his claim before the Executing Court, which shall decide the issue as to whether he violated the decree or not based on the available materials. Therefore, this Review Application is disposed of, with a direction to the Executing Court to dispose of E.P.No.157 of 2000 in O.S.No.961 of 1996 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 01.11.2022 Internet : Yes / No ogy/gk To
The learned Subordinate Judge, Palani.
5/6
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
Review Application (MD) No.51 of 2021
01.11.2022
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review application can be admitted on the ground that the petitioner did not violate the decree conditions.
Whether the issue of decree violation should be decided by the revision court or the executing court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahalakshmi
Indirani (died)
Veerarajendran
B. PUGALENDHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
