Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 55 (MAD)

Arputhamary v. Mariasoosai

2013-01-03

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 13.02.2012, passed in E.A.No.5 of 2012 in E.P.No.6 of 2007 in O.S.No.182 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Lalgudi. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summation and summarisation, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, would run thus: (i) The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that his client's request made under Rule 74 of the Civil rules of practice for summoning his settlement deed from the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Lalgudi, was denied unjustifiably. (ii) The learned Counsel for the respondent/decree holder would advance his arguments by way of buttressing and fortifying the order of the lower Court. 4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court? The Point: 5. A mere running of the eye over the impugned order would demonstrate and display that appropriately and appositely, correctly and legally, the lower Court observed that the revision petitioner/judgment debtor very easily could have obtained the certified copy of the settlement deed and filed in Court. As such, the view taken by the lower Court warrants no interference in this Civil Revision Petition. The point is answered accordingly. 6. However, the revision petitioner is given liberty to obtain the said certified copy and file it before the Executing Court as expeditiously as possible. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.