Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4525 (MAD)

Sagayanthan v. D. Lingappan

2009-10-28

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- The petitioner/respondent/defendant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 29.04.2009 in E.P.No.53 of 2008 in O.S.No.55 of 2005 passed by the Learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam in allowing the Execution Petition by ordering the arrest of the revision petitioner/defendant and to attach his properties mentioned in the Execution Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 3.The respondent/plaintiff is the decree holder in O.S.No.55 of 2005 on the file of Learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam. Admittedly, in the main suit O.S.No.55 of 2005, decree has been passed on 14.08.2007 by the trial Court in dismissing the suit. As against the said judgment and decree, the respondent/decree holder preferred A.S.No.13 of 2007 on the file of Learned Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam and the same has been allowed on 211. 2007, granting one months time to remove the encroachment. As against the said judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.13 of 2007, the revision petitioner/defendant has preferred Second Appeal No.8 of 2009 and the same has been dismissed on 010. 2009. 4. Inasmuch as the Second Appeal No.8 of 2009 has been dismissed and since the respondent/plaintiff/decree holder is to enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in O.S.No.55 of 2005 and because of another fact that as against the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No.8 of 2009 dated 010. 2009 of this Court, no further proceedings appears to have been taken by the civil revision petitioner/defendant. On going through the order passed by the Executing Court, this Court is of the considered view that the said order in E.P.No.53 of 2008 ordering the arrest and attaching his properties for disobeying the decree of mandatory injunction etc., passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.13 of 2007 does not require any interference by this Court, since, the order of the Executing Court in E.P.No.53 of 2008 dated 29.04.2009 in ordering arrest of the revision petitioner/defendant and to attach the petition mentioned property in the Execution Petition are well within the parameters of law and consequently the civil revision petition fails. 5. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Executing Court is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. 5. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Executing Court is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this revision. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.