Vinod Mohan v. Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chettys Charities
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE C.R.P.(NPD)NO.1048 OF 2022 AND C.M.P.NO.5369 OF 2022 Vinod Mohan
...Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs 1.Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty's Charities, Rep. by its Trustees, 1.C.Ethiraj 2.V.Sudhakar 3.V.Ram Mohan Gupta 4.Smt.V.Shantha Sridhar 5.G.Badrinarayana 6.J.V.Perumal 7.Y.V.Harikrishna 8.A.S.Hariprasad 9.V.Govardhan 2.A.Amarnath Propriator M/s.Scooter Needs, No.171, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
...Respondents / Respondents
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the E.A.SR.No.55510 of 2021 in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.650 of 2004 in O.S.No.3170 of 2003 dated 06.12.2021 on the file of the X Asst.Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Mohanamurali For Respondent :
M/s.Chitra Sampath, SC for M/s.C.Jayachitra
O R D E R
Heard, Mr.Mohanamurali, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, and Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Ms.C.Jayachithra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2.The facts are as below:
(a)that the plaintiff is a public charitable trust and that it laid the suit in O.S.No.3170/2003 for eviction of its tenants. This suit came to be decreed and promptly, the plaintiff laid E.P.No.650 of 2004 for delivery of the property. The delivery too was ordered and when the bailiff had gone to the property to effect delivery, this was obstructed by the present revision petitioner claiming that he is a sub-tenant under the defendant.
(b)The plaintiff/decree holder would now file E.A.No.3564 of 2004 for removing the obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. This came to be dismissed by the execution Court, which order later came to be confirmed by the first appellate court in A.S.No.21 of 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the decree holder preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.269/2009 before this Court, and after a full-fledged hearing, this Court allowed the second appeal and directed removal of obstruction which the revision petitioner herein has posed, and also directed him to pay damages. This judgment was delivered by this Court on 29.06.2012. In the meantime, the execution court has closed the EP and it has directed that the decree holder could only take symbolic possession of the property.
(c)After the decree in S.A.No.261 of 2009, the decree holder would now move the execution court in E.A.No.1/2021 to revive E.P.No.650 of 2004. In this, notice was ordered to the revision petitioner and he has filed his counter. Thereafter, he filed the present E.A.SR.No.55510/2021 for rejecting E.A.No.1 of 2021 raising almost the same grounds which he has taken for resisting the very E.A.No.1 of 2021. 3.At this point of time, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner opted to withdraw this Revision. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed to be withdrawn. It is however, underscored that the Execution Court is required to exercise its best caution and try to ensure that the decree obtained by the respondent is executed at the very earliest and its agony is mitigated, lest the legal system will lose all its relevance to the citizens of this Country.
4.Mr.Mohanamurali, learned counsel for the revision petitioner even offered to negotiate with the decree holder, but that he can do, not before the Court but otherwise. The Execution Court need not hold on its process merely on the ground of a proposed peace offer made by the revision petitioner.
5.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar Tsg/dk To The X Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
+1cc to M/s.C.Jayachitra, Advocate Sr.No.27125 +1cc to Mr.K.Mohanamurali, Advocate Sr.No.26902 C.R.P.(NPD)No.1048 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.5369 of 2022 BP(CO) RVM(17/05/2022)