Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2315 (MAD)

Abdul Sattar v. V. Balachandran

2012-06-07

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.10.2011 passed in E.A.No.250 of 2011 in E.P.No.92 of 2010 in O.S.No.176 of 1994 by the learned District Munsif, Sirkazhi, this civil revision petition is focused. 2. Heard both. 3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: This revision is focused as against the order and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.250 of 2011, which was one for the following relief: "To give the petitioners 18 months time from the date of the order to vacate and hand over the suit property after removing the super structure to the plaintiff decree holder." 4. The lower Court granted five months' time for vacating and handing over possession of the suit property. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been focused. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in all fairness would bring to the knowledge of this Court the earlier order passed by this Court on 24.08.2011 in CRP No.3183 of 2011, the operative portion of it would run thus: "7.) More over, the suit schedule property is the only property which forms the subject matter of dispute between the petitioners and the respondent. If the respondent/decree holder was seeking recovery of possession of some other property, not in the occupation of the petitioners/judgment debtors, the issue need not have been fought up to this Court at all. When the parties have understood the property and fought the matter up to this Court, there is no question of raising a dispute with regard to one of the boundaries. Therefore, the dismissal of the application under Section 47 CPC cannot be said to perverse. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners requests some time to vacate. The petitioners may be granted sufficient time by the executing Court, considering the hardship involved. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is also dismissed." 6. Thereafter alone, the said E.A.No.250 of 2011 was filed and the lower Court also granted five months' time, which got expired by March 2012. This civil revision petition itself is pending ever since February 2012 and as such, by this time also sufficient time got elapsed. Hence in these circumstances, I am of the view that absolutely there is no illegality or perversity in the proceedings resorted to by the lower Court. This civil revision petition itself is pending ever since February 2012 and as such, by this time also sufficient time got elapsed. Hence in these circumstances, I am of the view that absolutely there is no illegality or perversity in the proceedings resorted to by the lower Court. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would make an extempore submission that for handing over possession, time may be granted till the end of this year. I am of the view that time till the end of July 2012 could be granted and by that time the petitioners shall hand over delivery of possession of the suit property to the respondent/decree holder.