Madras High Court
K.Sankar vs P.V.Suyarajam on 25 August, 2015
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :25.08.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN C.R.P.(PD)No.3423 of 2015 K.Sankar ... Petitioner v. P.V.Suyarajam .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order dated 11.06.2015 of the learned Subordinate Judge at Uttangarai in Unnumbered R.E.A. No..... of 2015 in R.E.P.No.42 of 2014, rejecting the same and consequently direct the lower Court to take the same on file and dispose of the same in a manner known to law on merits. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subramanian O R D E R
The revision petitioner is an obstructor/third party. He filed an Application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and prayed that the same has to be tried as Suit. The said Application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is questioning the decree already passed in a Suit.
2.The details of the Suit and the details of the Execution Proceedings have neither be given in the Civil Revision Petition nor in the typed set of papers. Though the petitioner sought for stay of the execution proceedings, the same was rejected by the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai, by an order dated 11.06.2015. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the said order:
"Petition and affidavit perused. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in C.R.P.(NPD) No.1323 of 2013 dated 4.4.2013, the above said E.P.No.42 of 2014 was disposed on merits on 17.4.2015 and delivery was ordered on 20.4.2015. This petitioner filed this petitioner u/o 21 Rule 97 of CPC. The petitioner has stated that he is in continuous possession of the properties. In the affidavit the petitioner has not stated on what basis he is in continuous possession of the property. The petitioner has simply stated that he is in continuous possession and he is entitled for adverse possession. The petitioner has not filed any documents to show his continuous possession. Hence, this petitioner cannot ask simply to stay the proceedings as he has right over the suit properties. If the petition is entertained, delivery cannot be made effectively. To obstruct the delivery, this petitioner has come forward with this petition without any documents. As such this court holds that the petitioner has no prima facie and this petition is liable to be rejected.
In the result, this petition is rejected."
3.I do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Uttangarai, and it is for the revision petitioner to take steps for speedy disposal of his Application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Index : No 25.08.2015
Rpa
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN,J.,
rpa
To
1.The learned learned Subordinate Judge at Uttangarai.
C.R.P.(PD)No.3423 of 2015
25.08.2015