Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1269 (MAD)

C. Thiruvengadam v. Durai @ Nachimuthu

2012-03-09

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment : 1. Considering the nature of relief prayed for in this revision, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners filed E.P.No.90 of 1999 in O.S.No.1138 of 1990 and in the Execution Petition originally E.A.No.264 of 2001 was filed and that was dismissed and against that C.M.A.No.8 of 2004 was filed and that was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same C.R.P.No.276 of 2006 was filed before this Court on 23.11.2010 and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein was set up by the respondents 2 to 7 to file E.A.No.53 of 2011 claiming right over the property and that application is pending from February 2011. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the suit is of the year 1990 and E.P.No.90 of 1999 was filed in the year 1999 and two persons filed objections to the execution of the decree by filing E.A.No.264 of 2001 stating that they are the owners of the property and that application was dismissed and confirmed in the revision by this court and now the 1st respondent herein had taken the very same ground to attack the decree passed in O.S.No.1138 of 1990 and therefore the revision petitioners/ decree holders were not able to get the fruits of the decree for more than twenty years. He therefore prayed that the suitable direction may be given to the Court below to dispose of E.P.No.90 of 1999 at the earliest. 3. It is seen from the typed set of papers that the 1st respondent herein filed the present E.A.No.53 of 2011 in January 2011 and the same is pending for the past one year. Therefore, without disposing of the said Execution Application, the Execution Petition cannot be disposed of. It may be that the person who filed E.A.No.53 of 2011 may not have a good case as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Nevertheless, when a third party filed an application stating that the decree is inexecutable by raising objections, the Court has to consider the same and pass orders. 4. It may be that the person who filed E.A.No.53 of 2011 may not have a good case as contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. Nevertheless, when a third party filed an application stating that the decree is inexecutable by raising objections, the Court has to consider the same and pass orders. 4. Hence, the revision is disposed of by directing the Principal District Munsif, Salem to dispose of E.A.No.53 of 2011 in E.P.No.90 of 1999 in O.S.No.1138 of 1990 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.