← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/227/2016dismissed

M.S.Muthiah, v. M.Manickam,

2016-01-29Honourable Mr Justice M.Duraiswamy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :29.01.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY C.R.P.(NPD)No.227 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.1110 of 2016 M.S.Muthiah ... Petitioner v.

M.Manickam ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order made in E.A.No.4304 of 2015 in E.P.No.4335 of 2013 in O.S.No.6568 of 2002, dated 30.11.2015 on the file of learned IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in so far ;it relates to imposing a condition to pay 1/3rd of the decree amount. For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Balaji

O R D E R

Challenging the order passed in E.A.No.4304 of 2015 in E.P.No.4335 of 2013 in O.S.No.6568 of 2002 on the file of IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the judgment debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.6568 of 2002 for recovery of money.

3. The Trial Court, decreed the suit in O.S.No.6568 of 2002 on 07.06.2013.

4. Pursuant to the decree passed in the suit, the respondent-plaintiff, filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.4335 of 2013 for attachment and sale of the immovable property. Since the judgment debtor remained absent before the Execution court, an ex-parte order was passed in the Execution Petition on 17.02.2015. Thereafter, the judgment debtor filed an application in E.A.No.4304 of 2015 to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order dated 17.02.2015. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the judgment debtor has stated that since he did not obtain the certified copy of the decree in time and due to his old age, he could not file the appeal in time, therefore, there is a delay of 132 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order.

5. The reasoning given by the judgment debtor was accepted by the Execution Court and the Execution Court allowed the application on condition that the judgment debtor depositing 1/3rd of the decree amount into the court on or before 11.1.12016. Challenging this order, the judgment debtor has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

6. On a perusal of the order passed by the Execution Court it is clear that the reasoning given by the Execution Court is just and proper. That apart, the judgment debtor is facing the Execution Petition. The judgment debtor is liable to pay the decree amount, unless the same is set aside or modified by the appellate forum. In these circumstances, the condition imposed by the Execution Court is just and proper.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any error or irregularity in the order passed by the Execution Court. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The judgment debtor is granted time till 29.02.2016 for depositing 1/3rd of the decree amount as ordered by the Execution Court.

With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 29.01.2016 Index : No Internet : Yes Rj To The IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai

M. DURAISWAMY,J., Rj C.R.P.(NPD)No.227 of 2016 & C.M.P.No.1110 of 2016 29.01.2016