The Madurai Bench dismissed this civil revision petition filed to set aside an order dismissing an application regarding execution proceedings. The court held there was no scope for interference despite the petitioner's grounds challenging the District Munsif Court's findings on property and evidence.
IMPUGNED ORDER UPHOLD
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.1463 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023 and
C.M.P.(MD)No.7298 of 2023
G.Subramaniam
...Petitioner/Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant
Vs.
Pathirakali
... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 16.02.2023 made in E.A.No.2 of 2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2019 in O.S.No.253 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rajapalayam.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
ORDER
There is no representation on the side of the petitioner.
2.The petitioner is the unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.253 of
2003 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur.
The suit was decreed as prayed for. The petitioner appears to have filed a
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
first appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2008, which was also dismissed by the Sub
Court, Srivilliputhur. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a second appeal in S.A.(MD)No.412 of 2010, which has also been dismissed, as it is evident from reading of the affidavit filed in support of this petition. The respondent has thus filed E.P.No.13 of 2019 to execute the decree passed in O.S.No.253 of 2003 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Rajapalayam. In the suit proceedings, the petitioner has filed E.A.No.2 of 2022, which has been dismissed by the District Munsif Court vide impugned order dated 16.02.2023. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
“ 14.kDjhuu;> thjpia rhl;rpahf tprhupf;fhj epiyapYk;> Adverse inference vLj;Jf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lk; vd;W thjpl;l epiyapy;> mry; tof;fpYk;> Nky;KiwaPl;bYk; xU jug;gpduhf ,Ue;j thjp jd;idj;jhNd tprhupg;gjw;F
Kd;dpWj;jpf;nfhs;stpy;iy vd;w thjj;ij fl;rp nra;atpy;iy vd;gJ njupatUfpwJ.
k.rh.1 Mf rhl;rpakspj;Js;s kDjhuu; jdJ FWf;F tprhuiz rhl;rpaj;jpy; “tof;Fr; nrhj;jpy; vdf;F cz;lhd thlif cupikia uj;J nra;J mjd; gpd; jhd; mry; tof;F jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rupjhd;. thlif cupikia uj;J nra;J tof;fwpQu; mwptpg;G gj;jpufhsp nrhy;yp mtuJ tof;fwpQu; %ykhf mwptpg;G mDg;gg;gl;lJ vd;why;
2/7
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
rupjhd;. Nkw;gb mwptpg;gpy; fz;l rq;fjpfs; midj;Jk; toq;fpy; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;”vd;Wk;.
15.'mry; tof;F 21.09.2007k; Mz;bNyNa vdf;F vjpuhf jPu;g;ghdJ vd;why; rupjhd;. mjd; ngaupy; ehd; jhf;fy; nra;j Nky;KiwaPL 13.06.2009NyNa jPu;g;ghfptpl;lJ vd;why; rupjhd;” vd;Wk;.
16.'11.07.2013k; Mz;by; 2k; Nky;KiwaPL gj;jpufhspf;F rhjfkhf jPu;g;G gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;why; rupjhd;. 2014k; Mz;bNyNa epiwNtWjy; kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rupjhd;. epiwNtWjy; kDit fhyjhkjg;gLj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;gjw;fhf vdJ rNfhju> rNfhjupfs; %ykhf ,ilepiy kDf;fs; jhf;fy; nra;J tUfpNwd; vd;why; rupay;y mJgw;wp vd;why; njupahJ” vd;Wk;.
17.'ePjpkd;w jPu;g;G vd;id fl;Lg;gLj;Jk; vd;W jhd; tof;fhb tUfpNwd; vd;why; rupjhd;. ,e;j kDtpy; mry; tof;F jPu;g;G nry;yhJ vd;W $wpAs;sij nghWj;J ,Jtiu ePjpkd;w
eltbf;iffspy; mij gw;wp ehd; nrhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rupjhd';. vd;W rhl;rpakspj;Js;shu;. Nkw;gb rhl;rpaj;jpypUe;Jk;> jhth mry; tof;ifg; nghWj;J fl;rp nra;JtUk; kDjhuu; / gpujpthjp thjp jd;idj;jhNd tprhupj;Jf;nfhs;stpy;iy vd;W epiwNtWjy; kD eltbf;iffs; ep.Nt.k.vz;.2015k; Mz;by; vjpu;kDjhuu; / thjpahy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L cj;juTf;fhf tha;jh Vw;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; Nkw;gb epiwNtWjy; kDit fhyk; fle;Jk; Nehf;fpNyNa kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ njupatUfpwJ.
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
thjpapd; nghJ mjpfhu Kftu; thjpapd; tof;fpy; jdf;F Neubahf njupe;j tp\aq;fis thjpf;fhf rhl;rpak; mspg;gjpy; rl;lg;gb jil vJTk; ,y;yhj epiyapYk;. Nkw;fz;l guprPyidfspd; mbg;gilapYk;. vdNt kD js;Sgb nra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
kDjhuu; jug;gpy; Kd;dpWj;jg;gl;l khz;gik cr;rePjpkd;w kw;Wk; khz;gik cau;ePjpkd;w Kd; jPu;g;Gfs;.
1)2005-3-L.W.20 Supreme Court of India. Balvant N.Viswamitra and others /vs/Yadav Sadashiv Mule (dead) through lrs. And others.
2)Supreme Court of India. Civil Appeal No(s).2869-2870 of 2010. Mohinder Kaur /vs/ Sant Paul Singh
3)2017(2) CTC 776 Supreme Court of India. Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and others /vs/ Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others.
4)1999-3-L.W.576 Supreme Court of India S.Saghir Ahmed and D.P.Wadhwa, J.J. Vidhyadhar /vs/Mankikrao and another
5)In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal Nos.147-148 of 2011 Man Kaur (dead) by Lrs. /vs/ Hartar Singh Sangha 6)2023-1-L.W.66 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Thirukovil Palani, Rep. By its Joint Commissioner /Executive Officer. /vs/ Chellappan (Died) and others.”
kDjhuu; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
khz;gik cr;rePjpkd;wk; kw;Wk; khz;gik cau;ePjpkd;w Kd; jPu;g;Gfs; jhth kD rq;fjpfSf;F nghUe;Jtjhf ,y;iy vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ. ”
3.The petitioner has raised the following grounds to assail the
impugned order passed by the District Munsif Court, Rajapalayam:-
“(1)The learned District Munsif Court failed to consider that the suit schedule property is a joint family property.
(2)The learned District Munsif Court failed to consider that the other co-shares right over the property.
(3)The learned District Musnif Court failed to consider that the original plaintiff not examined.
(4)The learned District Munsif Court failed to consider that the plaintiff's side evidence was not cross examined by the defendant.
(5)The learned District Munsif Court erred in holding that the proceedings under Section 47 of C.P.C., was only drag on the execution proceedings.
(6)The District Munsif Court failed to consider that the scope of Section 47 of C.P.C.
(7)The other reasons assigned by the learned District Munsif Court for dismissing the application are
5/7
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
unsustainable in law and hence, liable to be set aside.”
4.There is no scope for interfering in the impugned order. The grounds stated by the petitioner also does not make out a case for granting interim relief or for admitting the civil revision petition.
C.SARAVANAN,J.
Mrn
Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.06.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Mrn
To
1.The District Munsif, Rajapalayam.
2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1463 of 2023
26.06.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application under Section 47 of CPC should be set aside.
Whether the cited grounds establish a case for granting interim relief or admitting the civil revision petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balvant N.Viswamitra and others /vs/Yadav Sadashiv MuleReferred¶39
2005-3-L.W.20 Supreme Court of India
Mohinder Kaur /vs/ Sant Paul SinghReferred¶40
Supreme Court of India. Civil Appeal No(s).2869-2870 of 2010
Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and others /vs/ Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and othersReferred¶41
2017(2) CTC 776 Supreme Court of India
S.Saghir Ahmed and D.P.Wadhwa, J.J. Vidhyadhar /vs/Mankikrao and anotherReferred¶42
1999-3-L.W.576 Supreme Court of India
Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Thirukovil Palani, Rep. By its Joint Commissioner /Executive Officer. /vs/ Chellappan (Died) and othersReferred¶43
2023-1-L.W.66 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
2 provisions across 2 enactments
G.Subramaniam
Pathirakali
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
