Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Rajeswari vs S.N. Kulasekaran And Ors on 29 March, 2006
In this connection, strong reliance is
placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff upon the decision reported in
2006 (3) CTC 171 [S.Rajeswari vs. S.N.Kulasekaran and others], which has been
subsequently followed by our High Court in the decision reported in 2015 (1)
CTC 516 [C.Murugan vs. Dr.Thilagavathy and another]. A perusal of the above
said decision would go to show that the revision cannot be entertained by the
High Court as against the order passed under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, as there is a clear prohibition under Section 115
(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, when an appeal remedy is provided to the said
order as per Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore,
it is found that the revision preferred by the revision petitioners as
against the impugned order is also found to be legally not maintainable.
C.Murugan vs Dr.Thilagavathy (C.R.P(Npd)No.2621 ... on 11 December, 2014
In this connection, strong reliance is
placed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff upon the decision reported in
2006 (3) CTC 171 [S.Rajeswari vs. S.N.Kulasekaran and others], which has been
subsequently followed by our High Court in the decision reported in 2015 (1)
CTC 516 [C.Murugan vs. Dr.Thilagavathy and another]. A perusal of the above
said decision would go to show that the revision cannot be entertained by the
High Court as against the order passed under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, as there is a clear prohibition under Section 115
(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, when an appeal remedy is provided to the said
order as per Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore,
it is found that the revision preferred by the revision petitioners as
against the impugned order is also found to be legally not maintainable.
Elanthammal And Another vs Alagar And Another on 15 November, 2000
538 [Elanthammal and another v. Alagar and another] and (2013) 7 MLJ
35 [B.Dhanam v. P.Usha Rani and Others]. Relying on the above said decisions,
it is vehemently contended that in an application preferred under Order XXI
Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., the Court is bound to determine the questions of
right, title or interest in the property in the execution application itself
and the parties should not be driven to seek the remedy by filing a separate
civil suit and in such view of the matter, according to the learned counsel
for the revision petitioners, the Court below has erred in dismissing the
application preferred by the revision petitioners on the above mentioned
ground. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners, the Court below has erred in holding that the revision
petitioners have to establish their right only by resorting to a separate
civil action and cannot get redressal in the application preferred by them
under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C. A perusal of the above said decisions
would go to show that the Executing Court itself is empowered to determine
all such questions in the said application and the parties need not be
directed to file a separate civil suit for the said purpose as found in Order
XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
B.Dhanam vs P.Usha Rani on 10 July, 2013
538 [Elanthammal and another v. Alagar and another] and (2013) 7 MLJ
35 [B.Dhanam v. P.Usha Rani and Others]. Relying on the above said decisions,
it is vehemently contended that in an application preferred under Order XXI
Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., the Court is bound to determine the questions of
right, title or interest in the property in the execution application itself
and the parties should not be driven to seek the remedy by filing a separate
civil suit and in such view of the matter, according to the learned counsel
for the revision petitioners, the Court below has erred in dismissing the
application preferred by the revision petitioners on the above mentioned
ground. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners, the Court below has erred in holding that the revision
petitioners have to establish their right only by resorting to a separate
civil action and cannot get redressal in the application preferred by them
under Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C. A perusal of the above said decisions
would go to show that the Executing Court itself is empowered to determine
all such questions in the said application and the parties need not be
directed to file a separate civil suit for the said purpose as found in Order
XXI Rule 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Alagar @ Savugan S/O. S. Raman, ... vs A. Baluchami S/O. Alagar, Pattapuli ... on 11 February, 1999
13. However, stating that the present civil revision petition has been
preferred by the revision petitioners invoking Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners that this Court is empowered to take up the matter and
dispose of the same as the right of the revision petitioners in respect of
the property involved in the subject matter is sought to be disturbed or
extinguished by the plaintiff. With reference to the above contention, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioners' placed reliance upon the
decisions reported in (2000) 2 M.L.J. 433 [Kuttiammal and others vs. Abraham
and another] and 1999 (II) CTC 535 [Alagar @ Savugan and another vs.
A.Baluchami and another]. The principles of law outlined in the above cited
decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
1