Dismissed

Moorthy v. Maharasan

Madras HC21 Dec 2023CRP/551/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision to challenge the return of an Execution Petition filed 16 years after the award. The execution court rejected it on delay grounds. The High Court found no illegality in the rejection but directed the petitioner to resubmit the petition for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to resubmit the execution petition within three weeks for disposal on merits. No other relief granted.

Moorthy Vs Maharasan — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved On : 14.06.2023 Pronounced On : 21.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶7

Moorthy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Maharasan 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kambam Branch, Madurai Division-17, Byepass Road, Dindugal. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Subordinate Court to number the EP.F.No.886 of 2022 in M.C.O.P.No.92 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court, Bavani, Erode District and allowed the Civil Revision Petition.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan for M/s.M.Gayathri

¶12

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

1/6

O R D E R

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the written endorsement dated 12.10.2022 on the Execution Petition in E.P.F.No.886 of 2022 in MCOP.No.92 of 2006 by the learned Sub Judge, Bavani, Erode District.

¶17

The petitioner has filed MCOP.92 of 2006 under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.11,30,000/- against the respondent/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation seeking compensation. After fulfledged enquiry Tribunal has passed award in favour of the petitioner on 26.06.2006 awarding Rs.2,71,223/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. However, the petitioner has filed Execution Petition seeking decree of the award on 07.09.2022 on the file of the Sub Court, Bavani, Erode District after the lapse of about 16 years.

¶18

3.According to the petitioner, he could not meet his previous counsel to ascertain the details as to the result of the MCOP.No.92 of 2006 and only in the year 2018, he has realised that his previous counsel has not taken any steps for execution of the award passed on 26.02.2006 and his previous

¶19

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

¶20

2/6

¶21

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶22

counsel has handed over the case records to the petitioner in the year 2018. In the meanwhile, the petitioner became sick on account of Hernia operation and he was hospitalised at Gayathree Medical Centre (P) Ltd.,, Theni from 27.11.2018 to 10.12.2018. Later Covid 19 lockdown started thereby no steps were taken for execution of the order in MCOP.No.921 of 2006. Ultimately the petitioner has filed Execution Petition No. 07.09.2022.

¶23

The E.P.SR.No.886 of 2022 on 12.10.2022, however was returned

¶24

with following endorsement

¶25

“1. Award dated 26.06.2006, E.P.filing dated 07.09.2022.

¶26

Vwj;jhH 16 Mz;LfSf;F gpwF jhf;fy; bra;a[k; ,k;kD vt;thW epiyf;fj;jf;fJ/

¶27

2/ Award- cld; ,izf;fg;gl;lJ tHf;fwp?u; Dockety; HMOP vd Fpw;gpglg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt jpUg;ggLfwpJ/”

¶28

Insofar as, return endorsement of the learned Sub Judge, Bavani,

¶29

Erode District is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that reasons assigned by the Execution Court are not proper.

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶33

The petitioner is expected to file the Execution Petition within period of 12 years from the date of passing of the award . Admittedly, the award decree has been passed on 26.06.2006, however the petitioner has chosen to file Execution Petition on 07.09.2022 after lapse of 16 long years. The petitioner has submitted that he could not meet his previous counsel as he fell ill and later on account of Covid 19 pandemic, thereby he could not able to file Execution Petition. Once Execution Petition could not be filed within time stipulated under the statute, whatever may be the reason for delay the Execution Petition cannot be admitted. This Court finds no irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, Bavani, Erode District cannot be interfered by this Court.

¶34

As seen from the record, the learned Sub Judge, Bavani, Erode District has returned the Execution Petition with an endorsement as to how Execution Petition is maintainable after 16 years. Petitioner is expected to resubmit the record with suitable reply. Instead the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition. The petitioner

¶35

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

¶36

4/6

¶37

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶38

should have resubmitted and waited until passing of final orders either by numbering the Execution Petition or rejecting.

¶39

Considering above, if the petitioner is still interested, he is at liberty to resubmit the application for Executions Petition within three weeks from the receipt of copy of this order and on resubmission of the of the same, the learned Sub Judge, Bavani, Erode District is directed to dispose of the same on merits as per the law as speedily as possible. Registry is directed to return the original case records to the petitioner with due acknowledgement, by substituting the same with photo copy.

¶40

With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed

¶41

of. No costs.

¶42

21.12.2023

¶43

Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes jai

¶44

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

¶45

5/6

¶46

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶47

Dr.D.NAGARJUN, J. jai

¶48

¶49

The Sub-Court, Bavani, Erode District

¶50

C.R.P.No.551 of 2023

¶51

21.12.2023

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

Moorthy v. Maharasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moorthy v. Maharasan

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

The Management, Vs The Controlling Authority

V.v.Swaminathan Vs The Principal Secretary and

M.Rajangam, S/o.Muthusamy, Vs The Joint Registrar / Special

S.Sadhasivam, Vs The District Collector

D.Iyyappan Vs a.Gomathi Nayagi

D.Thilaga Vs The Secretary to Government