Madras High Court
P. Pushpanathan vs I.C. Subramaniam on 25 July, 2013
Author: K. Ravichandrabaabu
Bench: K. Ravichandrabaabu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.07.2013 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU Civil Revision Petition (NPD)NO.4503 of 2010 and M.P.No. 1 of 2010 ......... 1. P. Pushpanathan 2. P. Govindaraj 3. P. Chandrasekaran .. Petitioners Vs. 1. I.C. Subramaniam 2. K.S. Palanisamy .. Respondents Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the fair and decretal order dated 24.3.2010 passed in E.A.No. 8 of 2009 in E.P.No. 180 of 1999 in O.S.No. 459 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai. For Petitioners : Mr.B. Kumaraswamy For Respondents : Mr. V.P.Sengottuvel R1 Mr. S. Venkidasamy - R2 ......... ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 24.3.2010 passed in E.A.No. 8 of 2009 in E.P.No. 180 of 1999 in O.S.No. 459 of 1998, on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai.
2. The petitioners as third parties, filed the above said application before the Executing Court under Order I, Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC seeking to implead them as respondents 2 to 4 in the said execution petition. The Court below rejected the said application and aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petition is filed by them.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents.
4. The following are the short facts arising for consideration in this civil revision petition.
The first respondent herein filed O.S.No. 459 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Court, Perundurai, seeking for recovery of money against the second respondent. After contest, the trial Court passed a judgment and decree on 15.11.1991. The first respondent filed E.P.R.No. 7 of 1993 for execution of the said decree. Pursuant to the order made in the said execution petition, the second respondent was arrested and sent to jail. Thereafter, though the first respondent filed two execution petitions in E.P.No. 276 of 1993 and E.P.R.No. 318 of 1993 seeking for auctioning the property, the Court below had dismissed those two petitions on 7.4.1994 and 24.6.1996 respectively. However, another petition filed in E.P.No. 180 of 1999 for auctioning the property came to be allowed and consequently, the property was sold in auction on 5.9.2003 and the sale was also confirmed. Consequently, the said execution petition was also closed on 15.10.2003. Thereafter, the first respondent filed E.A.No. 7 of 2009 seeking for delivery of possession and the petitioners herein filed E.A.No. 8 of 2009 seeking to implead them as party-respondents. It is admitted by the both sides that the petitioners are the children of the second respondent.
5. It is the contention of the petitioners that they filed a suit in O.S.No. 201 of 1993 against the second respondent father seeking for partition wherein, a preliminary decree came to be passed on 20.11.1995 thereby declaring 1/8th share to each of the petitioner. It is further stated by them that on 17.10.2008, there was a compromise entered between the first and second respondent in the village and therefore, in order to give effect to the compromise, these petitioners want to get themselves impleaded in the partition suit.
6. From the above stated facts and circumstances, I find that the petitioners are not at all necessary parties to the proceedings before the Executing Court, especially, when the suit was filed against the second respondent seeking for recovery of money and through out, the second respondent has contested the matter and he is still the party - respondent before the Executing Court. When the second respondent is already there to contest the matter, the petitioners in the capacity as his children, cannot be impleaded as party-respondents. At any event, their suit filed in the year 1993 is much later to the decree passed in O.S.No. 459 of 1988 . It is also seen that E.P.R.No. 180 of 1999 for auctioning the property was allowed and consequently, the property was sold on 5.9.2003 and thereafter, the very execution petition itself was closed on 15.10.2003.
7. Taking into consideration all of these facts, I find that the petitioners are not necessary parties to be impleaded in the proceedings. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application, with which, I find no irregularity or infirmity. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2010 is dismissed. No costs.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that E.P.R.No. 7 of 2009 is kept pending for more than four years and therefore, suitable direction may be issued to the Court below to dispose of the same at the earliest.
9. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 1988 and the E.P.R.No. 180 of 1999 also came to be allowed in the year 2003,the Court below is directed to dispose of the E.A.No. 7 of 2009 within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
25.7.2013 ra Index: yes/No Internet: yes/No To The Sub Court, Perundurai.
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU,J., ra CRP(NDP)No.4503 of 2010 Date: 25.7.2013