Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4493 (MAD)

S. Sundaram v. S. Shanmugam & Others

2009-10-27

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioners have filed these two civil revision petitions as against the order dated 10.06.2009 in E.A.No.64 of 2009 and E.A.No.65 of 2009 in E.P.No.117 of 2007 in O.S.No.262 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirupur in allowing the applications filed by the first respondent/petitioner under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to break open the lock and for granting Police aid. 2. The Executing Court while passing orders in E.A.No.64 of 2009 and E.A.No.65 of 2009 dated 10.06.2009 has inter alia come to the conclusion that the third respondent has no manner of right to lock the house and to refuse in handing over the property to the decree holder and when the application filed in Order 21 Rule 97 by one Mr. Saravanan against the first respondent/petition has been dismissed in the interest of justice. The E.A.No.64 of 2009 and E.A.No.65 of 2009 are to be allowed and resultantly, allowed the same without costs. 3. During the course of hearing it is brought to the notice of this Court that Valliammal has since expired in the year 2007 unfortunately, in the orders passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.65 of 2009 and E.A.No.64 of 2009, the third respondent Valliammal has been described as a person who is alive at the time of passing of the order in the said Execution Applications and moreover, an executing Court has also observed in its order that she has no manner of right to refuse to hand over the suit property and also to lock the same when the third respondent, Valliammal has expired in 2007 and the said observation is an incorrect one and in fact a factual error has been committed by the Executing Court in this regard. On the simple ground alone this Court interferes with the orders of E.A.No.64 of 2009 and E.A.No.65 of 2009 and resultantly, allows the civil revision petition without costs. 4. In Fine, the civil revision petitions are allowed. The order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.64 of 2009 and E.A.No.65 of 2009 are set aside. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of E.A.No.64 of 2009 and E.A.No.65 of 2009 will not preclude the decree holder/first respondent in projecting proper applications before the Executing Court to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.