1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.31 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 R.J.Nelson .. Petitioner/Petitioner 9th Respondent/9th Respondent Vs. 1.Sundari .. 1st Respondet/1st Respondent/ Petitioner/Plaintiff Robert Joseph (died) 2.Swarnamma .. 2nd Respondent/3rd Respondent/ 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant Gabriel (died) 3.George Joseph 4.Sarasammal 5.R.J.Suseelan R.J.Vijayan (died) 6.R.J.Premakumari 7.R.J.Thompson 8.R.J.Robinson 9.R.J.Stephenson 10.R.J.Wilson 11.R.J.Rosilet .. Respondents 3 to 11/Respondents 5 to 7, 9 to 14/ Respondents 4 to 6, 8, 10 to 14/ Defendants 4 to 6, 8, 10 to 14 12.R.J.Suja 13.George 14.Bovas 15.Beena Vijayan 16.Athira Vijayan 17.Anu Vijayan .. Respondents 12 to 17/Respondents 15 to 20/ Respondents 15 to 20/Defendants 15 to 20 Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the petition and order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Unnumbered Execution Application in Execution Petition No.118 of 2009 in Original Suit No.644 of 1977 by the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vallinayagam ORDER The order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Unnumbered Execution Application No.- of 2010 in Execution Petition No.118 of 2009 in Original Suit No.644 of 1977 by the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.644 of 1977 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of partition and redemption of mortgage, wherein the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 revision petitioner has been shown as ninth defendant. In Original Suit No.644 of 1977, preliminary decree has been passed on 08.02.1983 and subsequently final decree has been passed on 03.09.2009 and thereafter Execution Petition No.118 of 2009 has been filed. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Execution Application No.- of 2010. 3. The Court below has rejected the same by saying that already the High Court has given direction to dispose of Execution Petition No.118 of 2009 and therefore the present petition is not maintainable. Against the rejection order passed by the Court below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 4. Considering the nature of the order passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondents and the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 5. As stated earlier, the Court below has not passed any detailed order and the Court below has rejected the petition in question even without numbering it simply on the ground that already a direction has been given by this Court so as to dispose of Execution Petition No.118 of 2009. Since the Court below has not passed any detailed order, this Court is of the view to set aside the order passed by the Court below and remand the matter to the Court below as stated infra. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed without costs at the stage of admission and the impugned order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Execution Application No.- of 2010 in Execution Petition No.118 of 2009 in Original Suit No.644 of 1977 by the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai is set aside and the District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai is directed to number Execution Application No.- of 2010, if it is in order and pass detailed order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. smn SR : 22.01.2011 : 2p/3c C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.31 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 07.01.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/