Madras High Court
R.Chandra Sekaran ...Revision vs R.Raja Sekaran on 13 June, 2017
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.1112 of 2017
R.Chandra Sekaran ...Revision Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.Raja Sekaran
V.Arumugam (Died)
2.V.Paramasivam
3.A.Muthulakshmi
4.A.Silamparasan
5.A.Veeramani
6.A.Divya (Minor)
Rep. by her Mother and
next friend 3rd respondent
7.Chinnathal ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to direct the District Munsif, Thanjavur to
expeditiously dispose of the execution proceedings in E.P.No.69/2008 in
O.S.No.294/1997, on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thanjavur.
For Revision Petitioner : Mrs.J.Maria Roseline
For Respondent :
:ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur, for speedy disposal of the execution proceedings in E.P.No.69/2008 in O.S.No.294/1997, on the file of the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur.
2. Heard Mrs.J.Maria Roseline, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the execution petition arising out of the decree passed in O.S.No.294/1997 dated 04.03.2004, in the suit for specific performance is pending before the Trial Court for execution. The learned counsel further submitted that in spite of the fact the decree has been confirmed by both the Appellate Courts and special leave petition preferred by the aggrieved defendant being dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court as early as on 25.10.2016, the suit is pending.
4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that earlier a revision petition was filed by the decree holder for expeditious disposal and the same was allowed by this Court in CRP(PD)(MD)No.1634/2010 dated 01.10.2010. However, due to change of circumstances and new events, even after seven years, the decree holder is not able to see the end of the litigation. Perusal of the records show that the judgment debtor has preferred a review petition against the dismissal of the S.A.No.951/2008 and it has not yet taken on file.
5. A memo has been filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the learned District Munsif, Thanjavur on 07.03.2017, stating about the pendency of the revision petition in this Court in CMP(MD)No.12011/2016 in Review SR No.36488/2016 and sought for a stay for executing the sale deed for a period of one month. Though three months have lapsed, the respondent has neither produced stay order in his review petition nor allowed the Execution Court to proceed further.
6. In this circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Execution Court need not wait for order, in the so called review petition, alleged to have been filed by the 2nd respondent. If no stay order is produced, the Execution Court is directed to proceed further and dispose the Execution Petition, by 15.07.2017.
7. With this above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
To The District Munsif, Thanjavur.