Madras High Court
)Sagunthala vs )G.George on 19 June, 2017
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.06.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
CRP(PD)(MD)No.1055 of 2012
and
MP(MD)Nos.2 of 2012 and 1 to 3 of 2015
1)Sagunthala
2)Rajkumar
3)Selvakumari
4)Porkodi ... Petitioners
vs.
1)G.George
2)D.Veeraiyan
3)D.Natarajan
4)D.Velayutham
5)D.Divakaran
6)Vimala
7)Anusuya
8)Rani ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against
the petition and order dated 18.04.2012 passed in E.P.No.1 of 2012 in
O.S.No.3 of 2007 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Thanjavur.
!For Petitioners : Mr.N.Tamilmani
^For R1 : Mr.P.Sesubalan Raja
:ORDER
M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015 are filed to condone the delay of 725 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused due the death of the 1st respondent, to set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent as respondents 9 to 13.
2.The counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff submitted that a cleverly drafted delaying tactics is adopted by the revision petitioners in filing above petitions with enormous delay so as to deprive the respondent/plaintiff from enjoying the fruits of the decree of ejectment passed in his favour on 31.10.2011.
3.Records reveal that O.S.No.3/2007 was filed by the 1st respondent herein who is no more and whose legal representatives are now sought to be brought on record. The suit filed for mandatory injunction, declaration and recovery of possession was decreed on 31.10.2011. Two months time was granted for the revision petitioners to vacate and hand over the suit premises. E.P.No.1/2012 was filed for execution in which the revision petitioners have taken out an application stating that they have preferred an appeal with the delay and till the appeal is taken up on file, EP should not be proceeded with. Even after lapse of 5 years till date, the revision petitioners herein have not pursued the condone delay application and the appeal against the suit.
4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the condone delay application has been taken on file and the appellate Court has ordered notice.
5.This Court is not convinced by the above submission since this plea has been consistently taken by the revision petitioner for the past five years ever since the EP was filed. In a suit for recovery of possession, the Trial Court has granted two months time for the revision petitioners to hand over the vacant possession. Having suffered a decree of eviction, the revision petitioners either ought to have been vigilant in pursuing the appeal or should have handed over the vacant possession as per the decree. But, just by filing an appeal with the delay is not suffice to stay the execution. Hence, I do not see any merit in keeping this revision pending and entertaining the applications to condone the delay of 725 days in seeking to set aside the abatement, and to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
To The Principal Sub Judge, Thanjavur. .