G.Sivakumar v. M.Sudha

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.02.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN and C.M.P.(MD).No.2462 of 2024 G.Sivakumar ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Judgment Debtor Vs.

1.M.Sudha ... Respondent/Respondent/Decree Holder 2.Lakshmi Sivakumar ... Respondent/Petitioner/Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair order and decretal order in E.A.No.1 of 2023 in E.P.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.189 of 2008 dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Eraniel. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Wins

ORDER

This revision has been filed against the fair order and decretal order in E.A.No.1 of 2023 in E.P.No.6 of 2021 in O.S.No.189 of 2008 dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Eraniel. 1/4

2.The facts in brief:

Suit in O.S.No.189 of 2008 was filed by the respondent herein, seeking the relief of declaration, mandatory injunction and for cost etc., Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree, dated 19.03.2014. Against which, first appeal was preferred in A.S.No.4 of 2021 before the Sub Court, Eraniel. That was dismissed on 04.12.2021. Against which, second appeal was filed. Now, it is stated to be pending in S.A.(MD).No.82 of 2024. Before filing second appeal E.P.No.6 of 2021 was filed to execute the decree. Pending that process the impugned E.A.No.1 of 2023 has been taken out by the petitioner herein, to stay the operation of the decree and judgment till the disposal of the appeal. The above said E.A. was dismissed stating that wrong provision has been invoked. Challenging the above said this revision has been preferred.

3.Mere invoking the wrong provisions ought not to have been reason for dismissal of that petition. But the petition ought to have been dismissed on merits. Now leaving that point, even if we take that the petition is filed to stay the operation of the decree and judgment, now the 2/4

fact remains that the second appeal has been presented and numbered as S.A.(MD).No.82 of 2024 only recently. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner stating that stay was not granted by the second appellate Court. The petition filed by the petitioner before the Executing Court itself is not valid, since no stay order is in force. The execution must be taken to its logical end. So I find absolutely no reason to entertain this revision. This revision reserves to be dismissed.

4.Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 22.02.2024 Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No TM To 1.The District Munsif, Eraniel.

2.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

TM 22.02.2024 4/4