Rajayyan Robin@Thankappan v. Mary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.08.2018 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRP (MD)No.863 of 2017 (NPD) 1.Rajayyan @ Thankappan 2.Vargheesh 3.Thangaraj @ Varuvel 4.N.Rengaswamy 5.N.Ramasamy 6.Gnanammal 7.Devadas 8.V.Thangaswamy Nadar
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.Mary 2.Pushpam 3.Lilly Bai 4.Stella Bai 5.Aji 6.Suji 7.C.Russelraj 8.C.Kanagaraj 9.Swarnamma 10.Franklin 11.Jebacilin 12.Francilin 13.E.Stanly 14.Bethasa Kumari Lalitha 15.E.Mallika Preetha Kumari 16.K.Muthaiyan 17.Muthamma 18.State rep.by The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.
19.V.Thankaraj 20.V.Thangappan 21.T.Krishnan Kutty 22.Nagappan 23.Sugananthan 24.Sobana Bai 25.Selvaraj 26.Kanagaraj 27.C.Chinnathambi 28.C.Raghavan 29.R.Jeyan 30.Thangan 31.Gunamoni
32.V.Chellaswamy 33.Kangamoni 34.Ammukutti @ Mary 35.V.Johnrose 36.V.Thangaraj 37.V.Thanislas 38.Panguthanthai Stenislas 39.Daicy 40.Gowri 41.Baskaran 42.Muthiyyan 43.Sugumaran 44.Thangaraj @ Varuvel 45.Natarajan 46.Kamal Anand Kothari 47.Francis 48.Shobi 49.Pushparaj 50.Natarajan 51.V.C.Kushlal 52.V.C.Rajaram 53.G.Reckslin Jikki 54.C.Shali 55.P.Kochupillai 56.P.Rajayyan 57.Baby 58.Rengabai 59.K.D.Omana 60.A.Kumaradhas 61.A.Gnanadhas 62.P.Pushpam 63.P.Kanakaleela 64.Rajammal 65.G.Robinson 66.G.Livingston 67.N.Selvadhas 68.Parish Priest 69.Davidraj 70.Murugan 71.Vijayamma 72.Selvi 73..Rajasekhar 74.Subitha 75.Subashini 76.Suni 77.C.Pushpam 78.Sobi @ Sobidhas 79.Victoria 80.Rema 81.Minor Adhira 82.Gnanaselvi 83.Suganthi
84.Mohanraj 85.Thankammal 86.M.Glory 87.M.Mary 88.M.Jeeva 89.Ammukutty Appavu 90.Vasanthakumari 91.Nirmala 92.Siyamala 93.Rosammal @ Kamalachi 94.Thangaraj 95.Selvaraj 96.Kanagaraj 97.Jeyaraj 98.Suseela 99.Evlin 100.Swarnammal 101.Gilda 102.TATA 103.Harikumar 104.Sivakumar 105.Ponnu 106.Roby 107.Omana 108.Soman 109.Lalitha 110.Prema 111.Suseela 112.Suresh 113.P.Satheesh 114.R.Mahesh 115.Gnanaselvam Chellaiyan 116.C.Sasikumar 117.C.Vinukumar 118.C.Vijitha 119.C.Sunitha 120.T.Beula Jasmin 121.T.Mohan 122.Valliyammal 123.Lilly 124.Vijaya 125.Tharmaraj 126.Sarojini 127.Selvaraj 128.Paulraj 129.Kanagaraj 130.Kanagaleela 131.Dhas 132.Thomas 133.Sudha 134.Gnanapoo 135.Jenet
136.Rethinasamy 137.Baby 138.Thankaraj 139.Paulraj ... Respondents PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.02.2017 in EP.No.10 of 2016 in O.S.No.484 of 1961 and consequently direct the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai to restore the said E.P.No.10 of 2016 to file and dispose it of in 3 months in accordance with law.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil for RR2, 4 to 6 Mr.S.Palani Velayutham for R7 R1 & R3 - No appearance R8 to R11 - No appearance R12 to R 139 Given up (vide EB)
ORDER
The revision petitioners herein filed EP No.10 of 2016 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. The E.P was filed to enforce the final decree in a suit that was filed way back in the year 1961. The preliminary decree was passed in O.S.No.484 of 1961 on 07.05.1971. Final decree came to be passed on 30.03.2013. The revision petitioners herein waited for 1 1⁄2 years and thereafter, filed an execution petition. The same was not numbered. Therefore, for numbering the E.P, the first petitioner herein had to file CRP (MD)No.2542 of 2015 (NPD). The said CRP came to be allowed by this Court on 25.11.2015 in the following terms :
"15.Keeping in view of the above facts, it is thus made clear that the respondents against whom the execution application is filed are bound by decree. The petitioners have also filed the execution petition seeking delivery of possession as against the present respondents and they do not want to execute the decree against the remaining defendants in which, the executing court shall not compel the petitioner to include the other defendants against whom they do not want to execute the decree.
16.Keeping in view of the above facts, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai is directed to execute jurisdiction vested on him and number the unnumbered E.P in O.S.No.484 of 1961 and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, as the
suit is relating to the year 1961. However, there shall be no order as to costs."
2.In terms of the direction given by this Court, E.P came to be numbered as E.P.No.10 of 2016. But, before the matter could take off, an objection was lodged to the effect that AS No.29 of 2015 had been filed questioned the final decree in O.S.No.484 of 1961 and the same was still pending.
3.The revision petitioners pointed out that the second respondent herein namely, Pushpam did not prefer any appeal and that therefore, the disposal of the said First Appeal will not cast any shadow on the present execution petition. But then, the executing court strangely chose to close the E.P with liberty to file a fresh E.P after the outcome of AS.No.29 of 2015.
4.This Court cannot appreciate the approach of the learned executing court. The only question that the executing court must have posed was whether there was any order staying the execution proceedings. If there was no order staying the execution proceedings, the only course open to executing court is to proceed ahead with the matter. Instead, it choose to close the E.P by merely adverting to the pendency of A.S.No.29 of 2015. It did not even consider the objection of the revision petitioners that the outcome of A.S.No.29 of 2015 would be irrelevant to the execution proceedings. This Court is of the view that the approach of the court is misconceived and clearly erroneous in law. 5.In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, namely, order dated 23.02.2017 closing E.P No.
10 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai stands set aside. E.P.No.10 of 2016 will stand restored to the file of the executing court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the first revision petitioner is a senior citizen. Therefore, the executing court shall dispose of the E.P by taking it up on day to day basis and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The executing court shall also send a compliance report to the Registry of this Court which shall be placed before me. It is made clear that under no circumstances, an application for extension of time will be entertained. With this direction, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
To
1. The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.
2. The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1CC to Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana, Advocate, SR.No. 77368 +1CC to Mr.M.P.Senthil, Advocate, SR.No. 77381 +1CC to Mr.S.Palani Velayutham , Advocate, SR.No. 77648 CRP (MD)No.863 of 2017 (NPD) 06.08.2018 SKM ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 1/09.08.2018/6P/6C