Dismissed

P.Pappammal v. P. Manokaran

Madras HC11 Dec 2024CRP(MD)/987/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Madras Bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an appellate order regarding an execution application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The court held that appeal, not revision, is the remedy. Liberty granted to file an appeal with time adjustment under Limitation Act.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; liberty granted to file an appeal; time spent to be deducted under Section 14 of Limitation Act.

P.Pappammal Vs P. Manokaran — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.987 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.987 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.5374 of 2024

¶7

P.Pappammal ... Revision Petitioner / 3rd Party Vs 1.P.Manokaran ... 1st respondent / Defendant 2.K.A.Ramasamy ... 2nd respondent / Plaintiff 3.Kanniyakumari ... 3rd respondent / 3rd Party

¶8

Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order made in E.A.No.3 of 2021 in E.P.No.46 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Periyakulam, Theni District, dated 24.08.2022 and set aside the same by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.P.Mahendran For R3 : Mr.J.Bharathan

¶10

1/4

¶11

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

¶12

C.R.P(MD)No.987 of 2024

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order made in E.A.No.3 of 2021 in E.P.No.46 of 2018 in O.S.No.3 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Periyakulam, Theni District, dated 24.08.2022 and set aside the same by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

Without going to the merits of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of on the point of jurisdiction.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that E.A.No.3 of 2021 was filed by the revision petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. Against that order, only Civil Miscellaneous Appeal will lie and not revision. He is referring to the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 283 , in the case of Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs Gunti Yashoda and another , followed by the judgment of this Court in C.R.P(NPD)No.523 of 2005 in the case of Tamilselvi Vs Saravanan and others , wherein it has been

¶17

2/4

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P(MD)No.987 of 2024

¶20

well settled that against the petition under Order 21 Rule 58, only an appeal will lie and not a revision.

¶21

On that account, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of

¶22

without going into the merits of the matter, granting liberty to the revision petitioner to file an appeal. In the event of filing an appeal, the time spent in this proceedings, should be deducted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, since this revision petition is initiated by the revision petitioner in a bonafide manner.

¶23

With the above liberty, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶24

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No

¶25

11.12.2024

¶26

pnn

¶27

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

¶28

3/4

¶29

C.R.P(MD)No.987 of 2024

¶30

G.ILANGOVAN, J.

¶31

¶32

1.The Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶33

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

ORDER IN C.R.P(MD)No.987 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.5374 of 2024

¶35

11.12.2024

¶36

4/4

¶37

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

P.Pappammal v. P. Manokaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pappammal v. P. Manokaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nainar Mohamed, Vs Muppidathi Ammal

Subramanian, Vs T.P.Sivasamy

A.Subramanian Vs a.Chellammal

Arulmigu Ponnambala Pillaiyar Swamy Kovil Vs Ganesan

Banumathi Vs The Managing Trustee

M. Bose, Vs M. Rajkumar