Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1962 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2022-07-07

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed, seeking clarification with reference to the order dated 05.10.2021 passed in CMSA.No.50 of 2012, this Court considered the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal on merits and passed the following orders: “11. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: 1. The judgment and decree dated 21.07.2011 passed in C.M.A.No.13 of 2008 confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2007 passed in R.E.A.No.124 of 2006 are set aside. Consequently, C.M.S.A.No.50 of 2012 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 2. The appellants are directed to deposit the decree amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of borrowing till the date of deposit and the respondents are permitted to file an appropriate application before the Court concerned to withdraw the said amount along with the accrued interest. 3. The appellants are directed to calculate the interest along with the principal and deposit the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the orders passed by this Court in this appeal stands annulled automatically.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the copy of the judgment was placed before the learned District Munsif at Rasipuram, along with the lodgement and challan for the payment of the amount indicated in the final order passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. The judgment and decree dated 21.07.2011 passed in CMA.No.13 of 2008, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2007 passed in R.E.A.No.124 of 2006 were set aside by this Court and the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal was allowed. 3. Though the payment challan has been placed before the learned District Munsif of Rasipuram, the learned Munsif raised a question, whether there is any specific order indicating that the sale was set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the learned District Munsif has not considered the spirit of the relief granted by this Court in the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. Contrarily, the learned Munsif misconstrued the order and unnecessarily seeking further clarification, which may not be required. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that they have approached the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal on 23.11.2021, who in turn, asked the parties to approach the learned Munsif and convince the Presiding Officer. 6. Contrarily, the learned Munsif misconstrued the order and unnecessarily seeking further clarification, which may not be required. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that they have approached the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal on 23.11.2021, who in turn, asked the parties to approach the learned Munsif and convince the Presiding Officer. 6. This Court do not understand the real doubt raised by the judicial officer with reference to the orders passed by the High Court. Thus, the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, is directed to submit a report, enabling this Court to understand, what exactly is the clarification, which is required for the purpose of understanding the judgment delivered by this Court in C.M.S.A.No.50 of 2012. 7. The learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, is directed to submit a report within a period of one week. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal and learned District Munsif, Rasipuram. 8. Post on 14.07.2022.