Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 692 (MAD)

P. Ponmadasamy v. P. Thangaraj

2013-01-31

G.RAJASURIA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 01.07.2011 passed in E.A.No.71 of 2011 in E.A.No.201 of 2001 in E.P.No.307 of 2000 in O.S.No.355 of 1999, by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi. 2. Heard both sides. 3. This case is having a chequered career of its own. Earlier, this Court on 15.06.2004 passed order in C.R.P.(NPD)No.718 of 2002. Thereafter, the decree holder filed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the E.P. Whereupon, the lower Court passed the impugned order dated 01.07.2011. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the lower Court, the Civil Revision Petition has been focussed on various grounds. 5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the decree is an inexecutable one and it is vague as vagueness could be and no head or tail could be made out of it and the alleged walls which are sought to be demolished in the decree, are not situated in the property of the plaintiff; but, they are the walls of the judgment debtors as well as the ones situated in the judgment debtors' land. 6. He would also hasten to add that after the direction given by this Court on 15.06.2004 as set out supra, the decree holder took seven years' time to file such an application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and got such appointment. 7. I would like to point out that virtually, the judgment debtors stand to benefit. The order of the lower Court is a bonanza to the judgment debtors and the contention of the judgment debtors is being considered by the Executing Court and whereby allowed the application to find out the truth and for that the Advocate Commissioner has been appointed. 8. I find no rhyme or reason on the part of the revision petitioners as to why they should stall the execution proceedings and thereby obstruct the ascertainment of true facts by the executing Court. As such, I could see no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. It is for the Judgment debtors to raise their contentions before the lower Court, which is seized of the matter and the lower Court Court is expected to consider the same on merits. 9. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.