Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4887 (MAD)

A. Stephen Prabhakar v. E. Duraisamy

2011-12-21

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2011 passed in E.A.No.171 of 2011 in E.P.No.61 of 2009 in O.S.No.535 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram. 2. The 1st respondent and his wife Soroja filed the suit O.S.No.535 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu for recovery of possession, damages for use and occupation of the suit property against the revision petitioners, which suit has been decreed on 20.1.2006. The revision petitioners along with one Jane Stephen, filed suit O.S.No.43 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Chengalpattu against the first respondent and his wife Saroja for bare injunction and that suit was dismissed on 20.1.2006 by common judgment. It is stated by the revision petitioners that they filed appeal A.S.No.33 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.535 of 2001, which came to be dismissed on 28.11.2008. Thereafter, the revision petitioners along with one Jane Stephen filed two suits, viz., O.S.No.363 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Tambaram and O.S.No.47 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram against the respondents herein challenging the two sale deeds, bearing document No.2873/97 dated 4.7.1997 and document No.2872/97 dated 4.7.1997 respectively as null and void and inoperative. In those suits admittedly, no interim orders were granted. 3. Based on the decree granted by the Sub Court, Chengalpattu in O.S.No.535 of 2001 in judgment dated 20.1.2006, E.P.No.61 of 2009 has been filed for delivery of the suit property to the decree holders. The revision petitioners/judgment debtors filed E.A.No.171 of 2011 under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.61 of 2009 till the disposal of pending suit O.S.Nos.363 of 2009 and 47 of 2010 and that appears to be only ground on which the E.A. was filed and the court below dismissed the said E.A. In the affidavit filed in support of E.A.No.171 of 2011 except referring to two pending suits, no reason was stated. Revision petitioners have not produced any interim orders of court restraining the executing court. In such view of the matter, the court below justified in dismissing the E.A.No.171 of 2011. 4. Another plea taken by the revision petitioners is that Second Appeal has been field and is pending. Revision petitioners have not produced any interim orders of court restraining the executing court. In such view of the matter, the court below justified in dismissing the E.A.No.171 of 2011. 4. Another plea taken by the revision petitioners is that Second Appeal has been field and is pending. Admittedly, there is no interim order granted in favour of the revision petitioners in the second appeal. 5. Further, the E.P.No.61 of 2009 was allowed on 19.11.2011 and direction was issued for delivery of the property. It is stated that the said order was not challenged on merits till date. 6. In view of the above, finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.