Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
Kothainayakiammal & Ors. – Petitioners
Vs.
D. Murali - Respondent
C.R.P. (NPD) No.3602 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 12.10.2015
Tenants - Execution Proceedings - Appeal Delay Condonation - The court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the delay condonation application within two months, and ordered that the executing court shall not proceed with the execution proceedings until the disposal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants suffered a decree in a rent control case and filed an appeal with a delay, seeking condonation of the delay. The landlord filed an execution petition, prompting the tenants to approach the court to set aside the execution proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the tenants' argument that allowing the execution petition before the disposal of the appeal would render the appeal futile. As a result, the court directed the appellate authority to expedite the disposal of the delay condonation application and ordered a stay on the execution proceedings until the appeal is decided.
Issues: Delay in appeal filing, execution proceedings, stay on execution pending appeal
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that the appeal process is not rendered meaningless by allowing the execution proceedings to proceed before the appeal is decided.
Final Decision: The court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the delay condonation application within two months and ordered a stay on the execution proceedings until the appeal is decided.
The revision petitioners are the tenants. They suffered a decree dated 03.12.2014 in RCOP No.170 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller and I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2. The revision petitioners, thereafter, filed appeal before the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore. Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, they filed interim application in I.A.No.260 of 2015 to condone the delay.
3. In these circumstances, the respondent/landlord filed execution petition. Hence, the revision petitioners are before this Court to set aside the execution proceedings.
4. Heard both sides.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the execution petition is allowed before the disposal of the appeal, then nothing survives for adjudication before the appellate forum. I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In view of the above, a direction is issued to the Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, the appellate authority to dispose of I.A.No.260 of 2015 in ASCFR RCA No.18297 of 2015, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Executing Court shall not proceed with E.P.R.No.14 of 2015 in E.P.No.1 of 2015 in RCOP No.170 of 2007 until I.A.No.260 of 2015 in ASCFR RCA No.18297 of 2015 is disposed of. It is needless to state that if I.A.No.260 of 2015 is allowed, then the Executing Court shall not proceed with the execution proceedings until the disposal of the appeal and if the same is dismissed, the Executing Court shall proceed with the execution proceedings.
7. The revision petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
