Dismissed

Chellan(Deceased) Neela Kantan Nadar(Deceased) v. George

Madras HC12 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/623/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision sought to set aside an order for delivery of property in an execution petition. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the pendency of the appeal against the exparte decree did not legally bar the execution proceedings which proceeded due to the failure to obtain a stay.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; execution order for delivery of property reaffirmed; no costs awarded.

Chellan(Deceased) Neela Kantan Nadar(Deceased) Vs George — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD).No.3458 of 2021

¶7

Chellan (Deceased)

¶8

Neela Kantan Nadar (Deceased)

¶9

1.Leelavathy

¶10

2.Lizy

¶11

3.Vijayan

¶12

4.Rajan

¶13

5.Vijayakumari

¶14

6.Sathin

¶15

7.Sivakumar ... Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1.George

¶18

2.Bovas ... Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs 2 & 3

¶19

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the

¶20

Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.84 of 2009 in O.S.No.360 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai dated 01.03.2014.

¶21

1/5

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.P.Prabhakaran for R2

¶26

In respect of R1 petition was already dismissed on 12.07.2018 in SR stage.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in E.P.No.84 of 2009 in O.S.No.360 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai dated 01.03.2014.

¶29

2.The facts in brief:

¶30

E.P.No.84 of 2009 was filed by the Decree holder under Order 21

¶31

Rule 35 and Section 151 of CPC to deliver 'B' schedule property, in pursuance of the Judgment and Decree passed on 11.09.2008. Counter was filed by the revision petitioner stating that decree was passed exparte. Against which I.A.No.187 of 2010 was fled to set aside the exparte decree. That was dismissed. Against which, appeal was preferred in C.M.A.No.1198 of 2011 and it is stated to be pending before the appellate authority. After hearing both sides the execution Court was of the view that sufficient opportunity was given to the revision petitioner herein to get the stay order. In spite of that he failed. So E.P cannot be

¶32

2/5

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021

¶35

kept pending. So delivery was ordered to be effected on or before 25.03.2015. Against which this revision has been preferred.

¶36

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the second respondent.

¶37

4.Absolutely, no ground is made out by the revision petitioner herein to entertain this revision petition. The revision petitioner ought to have prosecuted CMA before the appellate authority. What happened to the CMA is not disclosed in the grounds. It is stated that Simply because CMASR number is pending before the appellate authority, execution petition cannot be dismissed. Now it is stated that the above said CMASR was numbered and pending in C.M.A.No.1198 of 2011. The petitioner has to prosecute only the above said CMA and even now the stage of the CMA was not intimated to this Court. Since it is stated to have been pending from the year 2011, which cannot be a correct fact, so I find absolutely, no reason to entertain this revision. Revision fails.

¶38

5.Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No

¶39

3/5

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021

¶42

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

12.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM To

¶44

1.The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

¶45

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶46

4/5

¶47

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

¶48

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

C.R.P.(MD)No.623 of 2021

¶53

12.11.2024

¶54

5/5

¶55

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

Chellan(Deceased) Neela Kantan Nadar(Deceased) v. George

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellan(Deceased) Neela Kantan Nadar(Deceased) v. George

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

Petchimuthu Vs Chinnamannur Municipality

V. Arumugam, Vs Sri Visalam Chit Funds

Ambika Vs Rosy alias Roja

Thangaraja Vs Chandran (Died), 2) Raja

N.Valliappan Vs Flowersheela

Jakkammal Vs Pandi alias Appaiyasamy