Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 811 (MAD)

P. Mohanraju v. K. Subramanian

2009-03-25

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2009
Judgment Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The order passed in R.E.A.No.38 of 2006 in R.E.A.No.15 of 2006 in R.E.P.No.39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Namakkal is under challenge in this revision. The respondent is the decree holder in O.S.No.11 of 2005 who had filed R.E.P.No.39 of 2006 to execute the decree. According to the revision petitioner, an exparte order was passed in the said execution petition against him. To set aside the same, he had filed R.E.A.No.15 of 2006 which was also dismissed for default. To restore R.E.A.No.15 of 2006, he had filed R.E.A.No.38 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge,Namakkal on the ground that there is no merit in the application. O.S.No.11 of 2005 was decreed on 18. 2005 to realise the amount due under the suit promissory note. Even during the pendency of the suit, the property scheduled to the execution petition was attached. Neither the said order of attachment nor the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.11 of 2005 was challenged by the revision petitioner by way of revision or by preferring an appeal. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that even if the revision petitioner has got any valid grounds of objection, he shall be directed to deposit 50% of the decree amount to the credit of R.E.P.No.39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Namakkal. 3. In fine, this civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the revision petitioner to deposit 50% of the decree amount to the credit of R.E.P.No.39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Namakkal within a period of six weeks from today failing which this civil revision petition shall deem to have been dismissed. On compliance of the condition, the learned Executing Court/Principal District Judge, Namakkal is directed to dispose of R.E.P.No.39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 within a period of three weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner/respondent in the execution petition to file his counter. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.