Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2320 (MAD)

S. Selvavinayagam v. P. K. Ramakrishnan

2013-07-04

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment :- 1. The civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the returning of their application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 and Section 151 C.P.C. without numbering the same and hearing it on merits. 2. The petitioners herein are third parties in O.S.No.317 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet, filed by the first respondent against the respondents 2 and 3 herein and others for ejectment and for other reliefs. On 31.3.2008, the suit was decreed 3. The decree-holder namely the first respondent herein filed E.P.No.1 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Udumalpet for executing the said decree in O.S.No.317 of 1986. In the said execution petition, the petitioners herein, who are third parties to the suit, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 C.P.C. by raising various contentions. The said application filed by the petitioners was returned by the court below for effecting certain compliance on 22.4.2013. It is seen that the papers were represented after effecting compliance on 25.4.2013. Again papers were returned by the court below on 26.4.2013 for effecting certain compliance. It is contended that the court below erred in returning the papers once again without numbering the execution application. The petitioners have filed this present civil revision petition complaining about the non-numbering of the said application. 4. Heard Mr.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners are third parties to the proceedings, they are entitled to file application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 C.P.C. and it is for the court below to consider the application on merits only after numbering and hearing the petitioners. Without even numbering the application, the court below has repeatedly returned the papers filed by the petitioners by raising certain queries one after another for numbering the same, is his grievance. 6. Per contra learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the application filed by the petitioners itself is not maintainable., especially, when the second respondent filed an affidavit of undertaking before this court in the second appeal. According to him the petitioners were set up by the second respondent only to stall the present execution proceedings. 7. 6. Per contra learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the application filed by the petitioners itself is not maintainable., especially, when the second respondent filed an affidavit of undertaking before this court in the second appeal. According to him the petitioners were set up by the second respondent only to stall the present execution proceedings. 7. Only grievance of the petitioners is that their application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 C.P.C. has not been numbered by the court below inspite of effecting the compliance as required by the court. 8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent vehemently opposed that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain the application under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 C.P.C. Though he contended by raising very many grounds, I am not going into any of the merits of the application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 C.P.C. as well as the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the first respondent. As the only grievance of the petitioners is that their application was not numbered, without going into merits and the contentions raised by the rival parties, I only direct the petitioners to represent the papers before the court below within a week and on such representation, I further direct the court below to number the said application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 C.P.C. if it is otherwise in order, and to take up the said application and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law after hearing both parties, within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. I make it once again very clear that this court is not expressing any view on the merits of the claim made by the respective parties and it is open to them to raise all contentions before the court below including the maintainability of the application. 9. With the above observation, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P.No.1 of 2013 and M.P.No.2 of 2013 are closed. The Registry is directed to return the unnumbered E.A.S.R.No.2195 of 2013 filed by the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition so as to enable them to represent them before the court below.