Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1039 (MAD)

Valliammal v. P. Karuppiah & Others

2006-04-12

R.BANUMATHI

body2006
Judgment :- 1. Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India declaring to admit E.A. Interlocutory Application in the Execution proceedings in E.A.S.R. No.3677 of 2005 in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2001. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. In M.C.O.P. No.266 of 2001, an award was passed on 16.10.2003, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of Petition till the date of realisation of award amount. To execute the award, the Petitioner had also filed E.P.No.16/2004. In the Execution Petition, the Respondents have also deposited the entire award amount i.e., totalling to a sum of Rs.1,98,452. Claiming a pert of the amount, the Petitioner had filed E.A.S.R.No.3677 of 2005. That Application was returned by the office of the Executing Court, directing the Petitioner to state whether any application filed by the Petitioner is pending and also directed to obtain endorsement from the Respondents to that effect. It is stated that the Notice had been given to the Counsel on record for the Insurance Company and he has stated that he has no instruction about the pendency or otherwise of the Appeal. 3. Since the Respondents have deposited the amount in the Execution proceedings, it would not be appropriate for the Executing Court to return the Interlocutory Application without even numbering it. If at all the court wants to know about the pendency of the appeal, the Court ought to have numbered the Application and thereafter, could have ordered Notice to the Respondents. Without doing so, the Executing Court is not justified in declining to number the Interlocutory Application. 4. For the reasons stated above, the Executing Court/the District Court, Kanyakurnari, is directed to take on file E.A.S.R.No.3677/2005 in M.C.O.P.No.266 of 2001 and dispose of the same in accordance with law before the end of July 2006. If the Court feels necessary to hear the Insurance Company, the Court can even order Notice to the Respondents in the Application. 5. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.