P.Sivakumar v. C.Vetriveeramani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.18334 of 2019 P.Sivakumar ... Petitioner vs 1.C.Vetriveeramani 2.C.Elangovan 3.C.Pandiyan 4.C.Palaniraj 5.C.Jayabarathi 6.Sundaravadani 7.Sulochana @ Gowrinayagi (died) 8.Ethiraj 9.Kannan 10.Vasanthi 11.Krishnan 1/6
12.Mahalakshmi 13.Kalyanasundaram 14.Chitra 15.Lakshmi 16.Arundhathi 17.Ragunathan 18.Mayavathi 19.Savithri 20.Sadasiva Chettiar 21.Ramachandiran 22.Thirumalai 23.Govindarajan 24.Mahalakshmi ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.04.2019 made in E.A.No.48 of 2019 in E.A.No.98 of 2015 in E.P.No.57 of 2013 in O.S.No.112 of 1991 on the file of learned Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan 2/6
For R1, R2, R5 : Notice Served For R7 : Died For R8 : Want of Door No.
For R6, R9 and R20 to R24 : No Such Person For R3, R4 and R10 : Notice Sent Service Awaited For R11 to R19 : Door Locked
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executing Court allowing the application filed by 1st respondent-one of the legal heir of Decree Holder, to set aside the exparte order passed against him in E.A.No.98 of 2015 filed by the revision petitioner herein.
2. The 1st respondent's predecessor-in-interest namely Saradha @ Banumathi obtained a decree for partition and separate possession against the respondents 6 to 24. After passing of final decree in the partition suit, the legal heirs of original plaintiffs namely respondents 1 to 5 filed execution petition in E.P.No.57 of 2013 seeking delivery of the portions of Item-1 of the suit property as mentioned in the final decree. In the said execution petition, 3/6
the petitioner herein filed obstruction petition in E.A.No.98 of 2015 and in the said obstruction petition, the 1st respondent was set exparte on 25.01.2016. The 1st respondent filed instant application to set aside the exparte order passed against her on 07.02.2019. The said application was allowed by the Executing Court and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though exparte order was passed against the 1st respondent as early as 25.01.2016, the instant application to set aside the exparte order was filed only on 07.02.2019. When 1st respondent failed to explain the delay, the Executing Court ought not to have allowed the application.
4. The 1st respondent is the legal heir of the deceased Decree Holder. The execution petition for delivery was filed in the year 2013 and the same was obstructed by the petitioner by filing E.A.No.98 of 2015. The said obstruction petition is still pending. Taking into consideration that the legal representatives of Decree Holder are unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree 4/6
for several years and also the fact that the obstruction petition filed by the petitioner is still pending, the Executing Court exercised the discretion in favour of 1st respondent by allowing the petition to set aside the exparte order. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Executing Court exercising discretion in favour of 1st respondent/Decree Holder.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 20.02.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm To The Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry.
5/6
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm 20.02.2024 6/6