Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2559 (MAD)

N. Muthukrishnan v. Meenakshi

2013-07-19

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order made in E.A.No.2 of 2010 in E.P.No.22 of 2009 in I.A.No.1389 of 2003 in O.P.No.825 of 2001 whereby the court below rejected to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.22 of 2009 till the disposal of M.C.No.586 of 2005. 2. Heard learned counsel M/s.Uma Vijayakumar appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Sundara Kanchani appearing for the respondent. 3. Though the counsels appearing on both sides have advanced argument on merits on the rival claim of both parties, in my considered view, this civil revision petition can be disposed of on a short point. The prayer sought for by the petitioner before the court below is only for staying all further proceedings in E.P.No.22 of 2009 till the disposal of M.C.No.586 of 2005. Now, it is represented by both counsels that the very M.C.No.586/2005 itself came to be disposed of on 22.08.2011 by the I Additional Family Court, Chennai and the same was confirmed in Crl.R.C.No.1303 of 2011 by this court on 05.09.2012. W hen such fact goes to show that the very prayer seeking for stay of E.P.No.22 of 2009 has become infructuous, I find that nothing survives in this civil revision petition to be adjudicated upon further as this civil revision petition has also become infructuous in view of the subsequent development viz., disposal of M.C.No.586 of 2005 as stated supra. But the matter does not end there. At the time of granting interim stay in this civil revision petition on 28.04.2010, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.71,505/- on the file of the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the civil revision petition has become infructuous and is being dismissed, he may be permitted to withdraw the said amount. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has filed E.P.No.22/2009 seeking to recover the money from the petitioner and if this amount is permitted to be withdrawn, she will not be in a position to recover the same from the petitioner. 5. In my considered view, the rival contention and claim of the parties have to be decided only in E.P.No.22/2009, which was stayed by this court by an interim order, subject to a condition to deposit Rs.71,505/-. The petitioner has also complied with the said condition. 5. In my considered view, the rival contention and claim of the parties have to be decided only in E.P.No.22/2009, which was stayed by this court by an interim order, subject to a condition to deposit Rs.71,505/-. The petitioner has also complied with the said condition. But at the same time, since the respondent is apprehending that she will not be in a position to recover the money in the event of E.P. is ordered, without prejudice to the rival contention of the parties and their claim made in the execution petition and without expressing any view on the merits of their claim, I only direct that the deposit of such amount by the petitioner before the court below shall be continued and kept pending till the disposal of the E.P.No.22 of 2009. It is open to the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law on such deposited amount once an order is made in E.P.No.22/2009. This direction is issued without prejudice to the rival contention of the parties and therefore, this direction cannot be construed as a direction made on merits of the rival contention of the parties in E.P.No.22/2009. 6. With these observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.