A civil revision petition was dismissed as the trial court correctly rejected an execution petition praying for relief distinct from that granted by the decree under Section 115 of the CPC.
Liberty granted to proceed against the respondent according to the decree; no order as to costs.
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.1597 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1597 of 2018
C.Kamalam (died)
-vs-
S.Periyasamy ... Respondent/Respondent/ Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decretal order dated 11.06.2018 made in E.P.No.28 of 2018 in O.S.No.292 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Bindran
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil
1/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.1597 of 2018
O R D E R
The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/ Plaintiffs, under Section 115 of C.P.C., against the fair and decretal order dated 11.06.2018 made in E.P.No.28 of 2018 in O.S.No.292 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karur.
2. The revision petitioners are the Plaintiffs, and the respondent herein is the defendant before the trial Court.
3. The short facts which give rise to the instant Civil Revision Petition are that, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.292 of 2007 before the learned Additional District Munsif Court at Karur and obtained a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It appears that, when the petitioners faces some disturbance, they have filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur and sought for the prayer to direct the police to advise the respondent herein not to put up any construction in violation of the
2/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.1597 of 2018
decree. This application was objected by the respondent that the petitioners wanted to execute the decree in contravention to the actual decree passed by the trial Court.
4. After considering the either side submissions, the learned trial Judge observed that, the petitioners instead of approaching the jurisdictional Court for the appropriate relief, filed an application seeking the Court to direct the police authorities to advise the respondent, and it is in no way in consonance of the decree and ultimately, dismissed the application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would fairly concede that the very prayer in the execution petition is not in line with decree passed by the learned trial Judge. It is apparent that in the suit in O.S.No.292 of 2007 the trial Court has passed following decree:
“ ,Wjpahf thjpapd; jhth nryT njhifAld ; mDkjpf;fg;gl;L> jhth nrhj;Jf;fspy; thjpfspd ; mikjpahd RthjPd mDgtj;ij gpujpthjpfNsh> mtuJ Ml;fNsh vt;tpj ,ilA+Nwh> njhe;jtNth nra;af;$lhJ vd;W Jhthtpy; thjpfs; NfhhpAs;sJ Nghy; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; toq;fp jPh;g;gspf;fg;gLfpwJ.
3/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.1597 of 2018
6. However in the execution petition, the petitioners sought the following relief:
“ MfNt r%fk; Nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fs; jaT nra;J vjph;kDjhuh / ; gpujpthjp ePjpkd;w jPh;g;Gf;F tpNuhjkhf fhty;Jiw JizNahL mtUila nry;ygbahfhj gj;jpuj;jpd; mbg;gilapy; fpoNky ; 16 mbf;F fl;blk; fl;l Kaw;rpj;jjhy; kDjhuh;fs / ; thjpfs; ntq;fNkL fhty;Jiwia mZfpajpy ; ePjpkd;w cj;juT ,y;yhky; ehq;fs ; jiyaplkhl;Nlhk; vd;W nrhd;djhy;> Nkw;fz;l bfphpia epiwNtw;Wtjw;Fk;> vjph;kDjhuh / ; gpujpthjp NkNyfz;l jPh;g;gpy; nrhy;yg;gl;l msTfis kPwp fl;blk; fl;lf;$lhJ vd;W ntq;fNkL fhty;Jiw Ma;thsh; mth;fs; %yk; vjph;kDjhuh; gpujpthjpf;F mwpTWj;j Ntz;b ,k;kD rp.gp.rp 151 – d; gb jhf;fy; nra;ag;gLfpwJ.”
7. A cursory look of the prayer sought for in the Execution Petition would show that the same is in contravention to the decree. Therefore, this Court finds that the very dismissal order passed by the learned trial Judge is a well considered one and this Court could not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court.
4/7
C.R.P.(MD).No.1597 of 2018
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed . At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to give liberty to proceed against the respondent according to the decree. Which right is inherent and the petitioners are indubitably entitled to, therefore, liberty is given. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.07.2023
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi
To 1. The Principal District Munsif, Karur.
C.R.P.(MD).No.1597 of 2018
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
ebsi
C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1597 of 2018
12.07.2023
C.R.P.(MD).No.1597 of 2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the dismissal of an execution petition filed for relief not granted by the decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Kamalam and Others
S.Periyasamy
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
