The Madurai Bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order dismissing an application to stay execution proceedings and issue a subpoena. The High Court held the lower court rightly dismissed the application to prevent obstruction of delivery.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition is also closed.
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.(MD).No.142 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 10.08.2023 Pronounced on 21.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P.(MD) No.142 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) No.618 of 2022
Ramasamy
...Petitioner
Versus
Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 142 of Constitution of India to set aside the Order and Decretal Order dated 03.12.2021 passed in E.A.No.46 of 2021 in E.P.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the Learned District Munsif Court at Ottanchathiram.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Rajagopa Senior Counsel for Mr.N.Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.O.Thevan Kumar
1/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
ORDER
This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 03.12.2021 made in E.A.No.46 of 2021 in E.P.No.68 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ottanchathiram.
issue subpoena and examine the Village Administrative Officer, Firka Surveyor and the Inspector of Police to speak about the delivery effected on 10.11.2021. However, the trial Court erred in dismissing E.A.No.46 of 2021 and has not passed any orders in E.A.No.47 of 2021.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the order passed in E.A.No.46 of 2021 in E.P.No.68 of 2009 is based on no evidence and contrary to the evidence available on record. He
2/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
would submit that the trial Court failed to see that in the plaint Schedule in
O.S.No.114 of 2004, the property mentioned as an extent of 5.40 acres on
the southern side out of a the total extent of 8.59 acres and there are no specific boundaries mentioned in the plaint. He would further submit that respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.271 of 2008 failed to approach the Court with clear pleadings and since the description of the property in the above suit is vague, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed in E.A.No. 46 of 2021 to stay all further proceedings and E.A.No.47 of 2021 to issue subpoena and examine the Village Administrative Officer, Firka Surveyor and the Inspector of Police to speak about the delivery effected on 10.11.2021. Hence, the order passed by the Execution Court is liable to be set aside.
3/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
Court, Palani and the same was also decreed on 31.12.2002. In the Appeal Suit, it was observed that the suit property is in possession of the respondents herein and directed the respondents to institute a separate proceedings to establish their right in the suit property.
4/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
respondents herein. Therefore, the petitioner herein filed E.A.No.46 of 2021 for stay of all further proceedings and E.A.No.47 of 2021 with false allegations to issue subpoena and examine Village Administrative Officer, Firka Surveyor and the Inspector of Police to speak about the delivery effected on 10.11.2021. The said application E.A.No.46 of 2021 was filed with an intention not to record the delivery, which is an administrative act of the Court. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application which calls for no interference.
5/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
Amin filed a report stating that the delivery was effected On 15.11.2021.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is also closed.
6/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
21.12.2023
mac Index:Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No
To
The District Munsif Court, Ottanchathiram.
7/8
C.R.P.(MD).No.142 of 2022
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
mac
ORDER made in
C.R.P.(MD) No.142 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD) No.618 of 2022
21.12.2023
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the execution court erred in dismissing an application to stay proceedings and issue a subpoena regarding delivery of possession.
Whether the contention that the property description in the plaint is vague is maintainable at the stage of execution after decree confirmation.
Ramasamy
Senathipathy
Gunasekaran
Justice K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
