Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4300 (MAD)

K. N. Madhavan v. K. V. Subramani

2011-10-19

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the endorsement dated 30.5.2011 made by the District Munsif Court, Sholingur, in a petition/application said to have been filed by the decree-holder/plaintiff under Order 21 Rule 38 and Order 21 Rule 32 CPC to punish the respondents by way of contempt of Court and commit them to Civil Jail for their illegal act. 2. Plaintiff/decree-holder filed an Execution Application/Petition in O.S.No.112 of 2004 before the District Munsif Court, Sholingur. The said Execution Application/Petition has been returned on 30.5.2011 with the following endorsement:- "Since delivery was recorded in respect of EP mentioned property in EP 66/07 on 25.1.2008, as such how this EP is maintainable to be stated. Return time 15 days." 3. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the endorsement made by the court below is erroneous and against law and what has been filed is execution application to punish the judgment-debtors and the return made by the court below stating that how the EP is maintainable is erroneous. The court below has misread the Execution Application as Execution Petition. 4. This Court is unable to find just and reasonable cause for the revision petitioner to approach this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Revision Petitioner should have represented the Execution Application/Petition clarifying that the petition is filed as Execution Application and not as Execution Petition. Without doing so, the approach of the revision petitioner seeking to correct the error by way of the revision petition is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. 5. In the result, the revision petitioner is given liberty to comply with the return as per law. The Court below shall deal with the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. The delay, if any, will be considered by the Court below in accordance with law. The Civiil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.