C.Dhandapani vs D.Balamurugan on 9 January, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Madras High Court

C.Dhandapani vs D.Balamurugan on 9 January, 2012

Bench: R.Sudhakar

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated 9.1.2012

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice R.SUDHAKAR

Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.5067 of 2011 
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011 


1.C.Dhandapani,
2.C.Radhakrishnan,
3.D.Shanmugam,
4.C.Sampath.                      	   ... Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants  

vs.

D.Balamurugan,   			   ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff



	This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order and decreetal order dated 29.11.2011 passed in E.P.No.51 of 2011 in O.S.No.322 of 2005  on the file of the    District Munsif Court, Panruti.


	For petitioners   	:   	Mrs.R.Meenal

	For respondent		:	Mr.K.G.Vasudevan 		 

-----


O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decreetal order dated 29.11.2011 passed in E.P.No.51 of 2011 in O.S.No.322 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.

2. Heard Mrs.R.Meenal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The respondent/plaintiff is aggrieved by the disturbance caused by the revision petitioners/defendants in spite of a decree of a Civil Court in O.S.No.322 of 2005. Therefore E.P.No.51 of 2011 was filed for arrest and for other relief. The court below ordered arrest. Challenging the same, the revision petition has been filed.

4. At the time of final hearing, the revision petitioners as well as the respondent's counsel were called upon to state as to the nature of grievance. Today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners filed an affidavit of undertaking signed by the revision petitioners and attested by the lower court counsel, and it reads as follows:-

"1. We are the petitioners in the above Civil Revision Petition.

2. We undertake not to disturb the respondent's possession of the property subject matter of O.S.No.322/2005 before the District Munsif's Court Panruti."

5. In view of the affidavit of undertaking as above, the respondent/plaintiff, the decree holder through his counsel had made the following endorsement:-

"In view of the undertaking affidavit filed by the revision petitioners, the CRP may be closed and E.P. before the lower Court will not be pursued for the present."

6. In this Court, the revision petitioners have undertook not to disturb respondent/plaintiff's possession of the property subject matter of O.S.No.322 of 2005, the misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties having been resolved by this Court amicably, the order under challenge, namely, the order passed in E.P.No.51 of 2011 in O.S.No.322 of 2005 is set aside. However, liberty is given to the respondent/plaintiff to pursue the matter, if sufficient cause arises in future.

7. This Civil Revision Petition is ordered as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

ts To The District Munsif, Panruti

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court