Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3359 (MAD)

Kothainayakiammal v. D. Murali

2015-10-12

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
ORDER : The revision petitioners are the tenants. They suffered a decree dated 03.12.2014 in RCOP No.170 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller and I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. The revision petitioners, thereafter, filed appeal before the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, they filed interim application in I.A.No.260 of 2015 to condone the delay. 3. In these circumstances, the respondent/landlord filed execution petition. Hence, the revision petitioners are before this Court to set aside the execution proceedings. 4. Heard both sides. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the execution petition is allowed before the disposal of the appeal, then nothing survives for adjudication before the appellate forum. I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. In view of the above, a direction is issued to the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, the appellate authority to dispose of I.A.No.260 of 2015 in ASCFR RCA No.18297 of 2015, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Executing Court shall not proceed with E.P.R.No.14 of 2015 in E.P.No.1 of 2015 in RCOP No.170 of 2007 until I.A.No.260 of 2015 in ASCFR RCA No.18297 of 2015 is disposed of. It is needless to state that if I.A.No.260 of 2015 is allowed, then the Executing Court shall not proceed with the execution proceedings until the disposal of the appeal and if the same is dismissed, the Executing Court shall proceed with the execution proceedings. 7. The revision petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.