1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1153 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 R.Indira .. Petitioner Vs. L.Santhanam .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 10.06.2011 passed in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004 in Original Suit No.147 of 2002 by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajarajan For Respondent : Mr.A.Arumugam ORDER The order dated 10.06.2011 passed in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004 in Original Suit No.147 of 2002 by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.147 of 2002 on the file of the Court below praying to pass a decree of recovery of possession, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole defendant. In Original Suit No.147 of 2002, an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004. In Execution Petition No.21 of 2004, an order of delivery has been passed on 10.06.2011. Against the impugned order dated 10.06.2011, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/defendant as revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that in Original Suit No.147 of 2002, an ex-parte decree has been passed and in filing a petition for setting aside the same, there is a delay and in order to condone the same, a petition in Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the same has been allowed by the Court below and against the order passed by the Court below Civil Revision Petition No.2085 of 2009 has been preferred on the file of this Court and this Court has allowed Civil Revision Petition No.2085 of 2009 and thereby set aside the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007 and ultimately remanded the same to the Court below and the Court below has dismissed Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007 on 28.03.2011 and the revision petitioner has filed Copy Application No.1769 of 2011 on 29.03.2011 and the concerned Bench Clerk has purposely and also schemingly failed to comply with Copy Application No.1769 of 2011 and in the meanwhile the impugned order has been passed in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004 and since the valuable right of revision of the revision petitioner is being affected in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004, no order of delivery can be passed, but the Court below without considering the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 nature of attempt taken on the side of the revision petitioner after dismissal of Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007, has erroneously passed the impugned order and therefore the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that after dismissal of Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007, the respondent herein has filed Copy Application on 29.03.2011 and obtained certified copy on 18.07.2011 and against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007, no revision has been filed and under the said circumstances, in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004, the impugned order has been passed by the Court below and therefore the order passed by the Court below is not liable to be set aside. 5. As adverted to earlier, Original Suit No.147 of 2002 has been instituted for the relief of recovery of possession, wherein an executable decree has been passed and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004. In Execution Petition No.21 of 2004, the impugned order has been passed on 10.06.2011. The only grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is that after the dismissal of Interlocutory Application No.367 of 2007 on 28.03.2011, Copy Application has been filed on 29.03.2011 for obtaining fair and decretal order in C.A.No.1769 of 2011 and so far no certified copy has been granted. The grievance expressed on the side of the revision petitioner is not at all sufficient so as to stall the entire proceedings in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004. The Court below after considering the nature of the decree passed in Original Suit No.147 of 2002 has rightly passed the impugned order on 10.06.2007. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Execution Petition No.21 of 2004 in Original Suit No.147 of 2002 by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Sub Court, Pudukkottai. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, Advocate, Sr.No.42821 +1cc to Mr.Rajarajan, Advocate, Sr.No.42764 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1153 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 07.12.2011 smn/sma/28.12.2011/4c/2p https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/