1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.01.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.28 of 2011 Rengarajan, Foreman, Nagarani Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Keelaratha Veethi, Tirupaattur Town, Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner Vs. Chandrasekar .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the fair and decretal order dated 08.09.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.6 of 2010 in C.D.No.26 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Tiruppattur. For Petitioner : Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen ORDER The order passed in Execution Petition No.6 of 2010 in C.D.No.26 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Tiruppattur is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein has passed an executable order in C.D.No.26 of 2004 and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Court below and the Court below has dismissed Execution Petition No.6 of 2010. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred. 3. Considering the nature of the order passed by the Court below, notice need not be sent to the respondent and this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner has obtained an executable order in C.D.No.26 of 2004 against the respondent and the same has been put into execution in Execution Petition No.6 of 2010 and the Court below without considering the nature of the execution petition filed in E.P.No.6 of 2010 has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5. For considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the Court has to look into the entire order passed by the Court below, wherein it has been explicitly stated that the executable order passed in C.D.No.26 of 2004 has subsequently been set aside in Original Suit No.58 of 2008. Since the executable order passed in C.D.No.26 of 2004 has been subsequently set aside in Original Suit No.58 of 2008, it is needless to say that no executable order is in force and therefore Execution Petition No.6 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. The Court below after considering the aforesaid factual situation has rightly dismissed Execution Petition No.6 of 2010. In view of the discussion made earlier, this court has not found any illegality 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 at the stage of admission and the order passed in Execution Petition No.6 of 2010 in C.D.No.26 of 2004 by the District Munsif Court, Tiruppattur is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(W) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The District Munsif, Tiruppattur, Sivagangai District. C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.28 of 2011 10.01.2011 smn SMA/22.01.2011/2C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/