SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. RAMESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
K. VELUSAMY – Respondent
CRP 32 2018



C.R.P.(PD)No.32 of 2018 &

C.R.P.(NPD)No.264 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.07.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

C.R.P.(PD)No.32 of 2018

C.R.P.(NPD)No.264 of 2018

and C.M.P.No.1465 of 2018

R.Ramesh Bau

... Petitioner in

both CRPs

Vs.

K.Velusamy

... Respondent in

both CRPs.

Prayer in C.R.P(PD)No.32 of 2018:- Civil Revision Petition is filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the II Additional

District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court.II) at Poonamallee to

dispose off I.A.No.774 of 2017 in I.A.No.1628 of 2012 in O.S.No.53 of

2007 expeditiously and thereafter to take up E.P.No.43 of 2012.

Prayer in C.R.P(NPD)No.264 of 2018:- Civil Revision Petition is filed

under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order dated 06.07.2017

passed in E.P.No.43 of 2012 in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the II

Additional District & Sessions Court, Poonamallee.

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.32 of 2018 &

C.R.P.(NPD)No.264 of 2018

For Petitioner

in both CRPs

: Mr.G.Saravana Kumar

For Respondent

in both CRPs.

: Mr.J.Hudson Samuvel

For M/s.Paul & Paul

COMMON ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.32 of 2018 has been filed

to direct the II Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court.II), Poonamallee to dispose off I.A.No.774 of 2017 in I.A.No.1628

of 2012 in O.S.No.53 of 2007 expeditiously and thereafter to take up

E.P.No.43 of 2012. The another Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.264

of 2018 has been filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by

the learned II Additional District & Sessions Court, Poonamallee in

E.P.No.43 of 2012 in O.S.No.53 of 2007, thereby ordered delivery of

possession.

2.

In both the Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner is the

judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder. The respondent

filed suit in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court,

Thiruvallur, for specific performance and permanent injunction as

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.32 of 2018 &

C.R.P.(NPD)No.264 of 2018

against the petitioner. On receipt of the summon, the petitioner filed

written statement and thereafter the suit was transfered to the II

Additional District & Sessions Court, Fast Track Court-II, Ponnamallee.

Thereafter, the petitioner failed to appear before the Court below and he

was set exparte and exparte decree was passed on 26.07.2010.

3.

On the strength of the exparte decree dated 26.07.2010, the

respondent filed executed petition in E.P.No.9 of 2011 and sale deed was

executed in favour of the respondent in respect of the suit property.

Thereafter, he also filed execution petition in E.P.No.43 of 2012 for

deliver of possession and the delivery was also ordered, by an order

dated 06.07.2017. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the Civil

Revision Petition in CRP.No.264 of 2018.

4.

In the mean time, the petitioner filed petition to set aside the

exparte decree along with the petition in I.A.No.1628 of 2012 to condone

the delay of 837 days. The said petition was dismissed for default by an

order dated 28.06.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed petition to restore

Page 3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.32 of 2018 &

C.R.P.(NPD)No.264 of 2018

the condone delay petition with the delay of 24 days in I.A.No.774 of

2017. Since the same was kept pending by the Court below, the

petitioner filed the petition in CRP.No.32 of 2018 with the above said

prayer.

5.

The case of the petitioner is that after filing the written

statement it was informed that next hearing date will be informed to the

petitioner/judgment debtor. Therefore, the petitioner was under bonafide

impression that the date of the hearing will be intimated to him. But he

was not received any notice and as such, he could not appear before the

trial Court. It is further averred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top