1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.857 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Seeniammal 2.Rajalatchumi ... Petitioners Vs. 1.Jeyaraj 2.Sarojini 3.Indirani 4.Vijayalakshmi 5.Rengasamy Naicker Subbiah Naicker (Died) 6.Seenivasa Naicker 7.Ayyammal 8.Lakshmiammal 9.Subbammal 10.Aavudaithai 11.Indirani 12.Seenivasan 13.Subbalakshmi ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order dated 31.03.2011 passed in E.P.No.55 of 2006 in O.S.No.98 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sanakarankovil. For Petitioners : M/s.S.Ramesh alias Ramiah For Respondents : Mr.U.Ramajagadeesan ORDER The petitioners are the judgment debtors in O.S.No.98 of 1996 filed by the respondents 1 to 4 for partition of the suit properties. 2. It is not in dispute that preliminary decree was passed in the suit after due contest and final decree proceedings was initiated by the decree holder. Pending final decree proceedings, the same was transferred to other Court wherein the final decree proceedings was disposed of which is according to the petitioners without notice to all petitioners who are the respondents therein. As a result, the petitioners are compelled to file I.A.Nos.813 to 815 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex-parte final decree along with applications under Order 22 Rule 4 to implead the L.Rs of the first respondent since deceased and under Section 151 C.P.C to consider the objections filed by the petitioners along with order 9 Rule 13 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 application to the Commissioner's report filed in the final decree proceedings. 3. All the three applications are pending disposal before the concerned trial Court. In the meanwhile, the decree holder who obtained final decree, initiated execution proceedings and enforced the order of delivery through process of Court and delivery is effected and recorded and E.P is subsequently terminated. It is noteworthy to mention at this juncture that the petitioners have also filed petition under Section 47 C.P.C before the executing Court and the same is rejected and is followed by an order of delivery. 4. That being the stage of proceedings in execution petition, this Court does not find any reason to entertain this C.R.P which is filed against the order passed in the execution proceedings. 5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners has at this stage made a representation to this court to issue direction to the trial court to dispose of the Order 9 Rule 13 application and other applications filed along with the same within the time specified by this Court and this Court does not find any reason to reject the said representation. 6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however with direction to the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil to dispose of I.A.Nos.813, 814 and 815 of 2007 in I.A.No.155 of 1996 in O.S.No.98 of 1996 on merits and as per law within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioners are given liberty to approach the trial Court for appropriate interim relief if any, if so advised. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar pm To The Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil. +1cc to Mr.V.Ramajegadesan, Advocate, Sr.No.15673 +1cc to Mr.S.Ramesh @ Ramiah, Advocate, Sr.No.15651 CMA(MD).No.857 of 2011 28.04.2011 PA/29.04.2011/2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/