V.Balasubramanian vs S.Veerapathiram ... 1St on 11 August, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

V.Balasubramanian vs S.Veerapathiram ... 1St on 11 August, 2018

Bench: G.R.Swaminathan

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 11.08.2018  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN           
                                                                        
C.R.P.(MD) No.1732 of 2018  
and C.M.P(MD) No.7410 of 2018  

V.Balasubramanian                       ... Petitioner/Petittioner/
                                                Respondent/Defendant  

-Vs-

1. S.Veerapathiram                   ... 1st Respondent/1st Respondent/
                                                Petitioner/Plaintiff

2.M.Ramasamy                      ...   2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent/        
                                                Auction Purchaser/Nil

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the order of return dated 25.07.2018 in unnumbered
E.A.SR.No.7182 of 2018 in E.P.NO.177 of 2010 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif, Madurai, in O.S. No.643 of 2006 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif, Madurai Town.


!For Petitioner         :       M/sV.Santha Kumaresan
^For Respondents        :


:ORDER

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.643 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. He suffered a decree. To execute the decree, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.NO.177 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Munsif , Madurai.

2. The petitioner's property was brought to auction and sold on 12.04.2018. To set aside the auction sale, the revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 90 of C.P.C. The petitioner was ready to deposit the amounts required to be deposited in terms of Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. It appears that in the petition provision was wrongly quoted by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has been expressing his readiness to deposit the amounts in question and he also submitted lodgement schedule, no endorsement was made by the court below. Since no such endorsement was made by the court below, the petitioner was unable to deposit the moneys in the treasury and produce the receipt.

3. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is recorded.

4. The court below is directed to make an endorsement in the lodgment schedule so as to enable the revision petitioner to make the necessary deposit in terms of Order 21 Rule 89 C.P.C. Immediately after the revision petitioner makes the said deposit and furnishes proof thereof, the Execution Application shall be numbered and after notice to the opposite parties, the same shall be disposed of on merits and in accordance with law.

5. The Registry is directed to return the Execution Application filed by the revision petitioner in original.

6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.7410 of 2018 is closed.

Note: Issue order copy on 13.08.2018 To,

1.The Additional District Munsif, Madurai.

2.The Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court