Kamatchi vs Arulmigu Uchinimahali Amman Deity, Represented by its Executive Officer, Tuticorin

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1684

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K. MURALI SHANKAR, J.
Kamatchi & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Arulmigu Uchinimahali Amman Deity, Represented by its Executive Officer, Tuticorin & Another - Respondents
CRP PD(MD) Nos. 569 to 575 of 2019 & CMP(MD) Nos. 2861 & 6701 of 2019
Decided On : 07-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: G. Prabu Rajadurai, R. Maheswaran.
For the Respondents: V. Chandra Sekar.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Order 22 and 22 Rule 12,97 and 106 – Limitation Act,1963 – Section 5 – Property- Premises - Recovery of arrears of rent – Eviction - Revision petitioners are Third parties - First respondent, who is petitioner and plaintiff in suit, has filed the suit against second respondent/defendant for eviction of second respondent from suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation of suit property - Second respondent/defendant, after filing of written statement, has remained ex-parte and hence, Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin has passed an ex-parte decree, directing the second respondent/defendant to vacate suit premises and hand over vacant possession of same to first respondent/plaintiff and granted other reliefs claimed by first respondent/plaintiff – Held, even after taking so much of time, he has not chosen to pass any reasoned orders - On considering entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of view that Civil Revision petitions in connections with E.A. are to be allowed, but at same time, considering conduct of revision petitioners, this Court is of view that petitioners must be mulcted with costs and that Executing Court is to be directed to conduct enquiry in E.A.No.216 of 2016 filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and dispose of same within a time frame to be fixed by this Court - As already pointed out by learned counsel for revision petitioners, other four revisions are with respect to petition in E.A. and since the said petition in E.A. is only for stay of further proceedings, there is nothing for adjudication and hence, no orders need be passed and as such, revision petitions in CRP(PD)(MD) are liable to be dismissed - Executing Court is further directed to dispose of petition in E.A. on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month, thereafter. CRP(PD)(MD) are dismissed - Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in CRP PD(MD).No.569 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.164 of 2016 in E.A.No.215 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin.

CRP PD(MD).No.570 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.165 of 2016 in E.A.No.215 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Tuticorin.

CRP PD(MD).No.571 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.166 of 2016 in E.A.No.216 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Tuticorin.

CRP PD(MD).No.572 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.137 of 2018 in E.A.No.215 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Tuticorin.

CRP PD(MD).No.573 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.138 of 2018 in E.A.No.215 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Tuticorin.

CRP PD(MD).No.574 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.139 of 2018 in E.A.No.216 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court Tuticorin.

CRP PD(MD).No.575 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 01.03.2019 made in E.A.No.140 of 2018 in E.A.No.216 of 2012 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders passed in E.A.Nos.164, 165, 166 of 2016 and 137, 138, 139 and 140 of 2018 in E.P.No.18 of 2009 in O.S.No.25 of 2003, dated 01.03.2019, on the file of the Sub Court, Tuticorin.

2. The revision petitioners are Third parties. The first respondent, who is the petitioner in E.P.No.18 of 2009 and the plaintiff in the suit, has filed the suit in O.S.No.25 of 2003 against the second respondent/defendant for eviction of the second respondent from the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages for use and occupation of the suit property. The second respondent/defendant, after filing of the written statement, has remained ex-parte and hence, the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin has passed an ex-parte decree, dated 18.01.2005, directing the second respondent/defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the first respondent/plaintiff and granted other reliefs claimed by the first respondent/plaintiff.

3. It is not in dispute that the second respondent/defendant has filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree and that the trial Court, after enquiry, has dismissed the petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the second respondent has preferred a revision before this Court, that this Court has passed an order condoning the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree by imposing costs and that the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree is pending.

4. Meanwhile, the first respondent/plaintiff has laid the execution petition in E.P.No.18 of 2009 for delivery. The Executing Court has also passed an order for delivery and when the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document