Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4346 (MAD)

A. P. Krishnaraj v. M. Murugesan

2011-10-29

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil revision petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in E.A.No.77 of 2010 in E.P.No. 55 of 2002 in O.S.No. 272 of 2000 dated 26.8.2010 by the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No. 272 of 2000 filed for specific performance of agreement dated 15.6.1998. The revision petitioner/ defendant was noticed and was set exparte and an exparte decree was passed on 18.4.2001. The respondent/ plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration before the trial Court. Thereafter, he filed E.P.No. 55 of 2002 to execute and register the sale deed as per the decree. Notice in the E.P. was served on the revision petitioner/ judgment debtor. In that petition also, the revision petitioner failed to appear and therefore, the execution Court executed the sale deed and the respondent/ plaintiff spent an amount of Rs.97,554/-towards registration of sale. Thereafter, the respondent/ plaintiff filed an application in E.A.No. 96 of 2009 for delivery of possession and notice was served on the revision petitioner/ judgment debtor. In that petition also, the revision petitioner failed to appear and delivery was ordered. It is further stated that there was an obstruction at the time of delivery by the third party, which necessitated the Executing Court to order police aid and at that point of time, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 162 of 2009 in O.S.No. 272 of 2000 on 10.6.2009 for condonation of delay of 2983 days that is nearly about eight years, along with an application in I.A.No. 163 of 2009 to set aside the exparte decree dated 18.4.2001 and those applications are pending enquiry. At this point of time, the revision petitioner filed E.A.No. 154 of 2009 to stay the execution proceedings till the disposal of the I.A.Nos. 162 and 163 of 2009. The executing Court passed a conditional order on 31.3.2010 to deposit the cost of non-judicial stamp papers i.e. for execution of sale deed within 15 days i.e. on or before 15.4.2010. The revision petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order. Thereafter, he filed E.A.No.42 of 2010 seeking extension of time to deposit the amount payable towards the non-judicial stamp papers. The revision petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order. Thereafter, he filed E.A.No.42 of 2010 seeking extension of time to deposit the amount payable towards the non-judicial stamp papers. The Court showed indulgence and granted time till 26.4.2010 and even thereafter, the revision petitioner failed to comply with the order. Therefore, on 28.4.2010, E.A.No. 42 of 2010 was closed and E.A.No. 154 of 2009 for stay of the execution proceedings was also dismissed. After dismissal of E.A.No. 154 of 2009, the application in E.A.No. 77 of 2010 was filed seeking extension of time to comply with the conditional order dated 31.3.2010 made in E.A.No. 154 of 2009. After enquiry, the said application was dismissed on 26.8.2010 against which, the present revision is filed. 4. From the narration of facts as above, it is clear that the execution Court showed excess indulgence by granting stay on condition that the revision petitioner should deposit the costs of non judicial papers expended by the respondent/plaintiff within 15 days, which was not complied with by the revision petitioner. Further, extension of time was also granted and that was also not complied with. Therefore, E.A.No. 42 of 2009 was closed and E.A.No. 154 of 2009 was dismissed. Once the application for stay E.A.No. 154 of 2009 has been dismissed, the question of filing an application for extension of time does not arise. The Court below came to the conclusion that just and reasonable cause has not been shown by the revision petitioner for filing the application seeking extension of time and therefore dismissed the application and the said order is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case as set out above. The revision petitioner by his conduct is not entitled to any relief equitable or discretionary. 5. This Court is unable to find any infirmity or illegality in the order under challenge as the conduct of the revision petitioner extracted above clearly justifies the order of the Court below dismissing the application. As has already been pointed out, sufficient time has been given, which the revision petitioner fails to utilise. In any event, I.A.No. 42 of 2010 was closed and E.A.No. 154 of 2009 was dismissed and therefore, the question of extension of time does not arise. As has already been pointed out, sufficient time has been given, which the revision petitioner fails to utilise. In any event, I.A.No. 42 of 2010 was closed and E.A.No. 154 of 2009 was dismissed and therefore, the question of extension of time does not arise. A mere application for extension of time when the primary application is dismissed, is not maintainable and further, there is no order that can be extended in view of dismissal of I.A.No. 154 of 2009. 6. Finding no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Court below, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.