ORDER

Heard both sides.

2.One T.Loganathan filed O.S.No.125 of 1976 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Madurai for partition and for accounting. Preliminary decree was passed on 30.03.1981. Final decree came to be passed on 04.09.1992. As per the final decree, suit item 10 of 'A' schedule was allotted in favour of plaintiff on payment of a sum of Rs. 11,38,500/- as owelty. Thiru.T.Loganathan passed away on 15.11.2003. The legal heirs of Thiru.T.Loganathan filed I.A.No.31 of 2022 for depositing the owelty amount together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Court below issued notice in the Interlocutory Application. Challenging the said docket order, the Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

3.The reason for allowing the Civil Revision Petition at the admission stage was because the learned Judge took the view that for filing lodgment schedule for payment of amount as per final decree, no notice is required to be issued. The Court below was directed to issue lodgment schedule. The said order was subsequently recalled at the instance of the respondents 5 to 10.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of revision. He relied on the decisions reported in a) ILR 1919 (42) Mad 576 – Ramaraya Shanbogue -vs- Sherbott Venkataramanayya b) AIR 1995 SC 1572 – Mathunni Mathai -vs- Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited and another c) AIR 1943 Mad 334 – South Indian Railway Co., Ltd -vs- M.C.Mayilvahanan in support of this contention that the only purpose of issuing notice is to arrest the running of interest. According to him, issuance of notice is not necessary. The learned counsel took me through Order XXI Rule 1 of CPC and contended that the impugned docket order deserves to be set aside.

5.The learned counsel for the contesting respondents (respondents

5 to 10) submitted that T.Ramanthan has also passed away in the year 2007 and that the respondents 5 to 10 ought to have been shown as the respondents in I.A.No.31 of 2022. He submitted that the Court below rightly issued notice and that interference is not warranted.

6.The learned counsel for the respondents 11, 12, 14 to 18 submits that the 13th respondent is also no more.

7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

8.This revision petition rests on the premise that the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1992 made in I.A.No.851 of 1981 (final decree) has become final.

9.The learned counsel for the contesting respondents points out that the final decree was questioned by filing A.S.No.304 of 1996 and that it suffered dismissal for non-prosecution on 01.12.2016 and that steps are being taken to have the first appeal restored. As on date, the factual position is that there is no challenge to the final decree. Be that as it may, it is submitted that on account of non-deposit of non-judicial stamp papers, final decree is yet to be drafted. Order XXI Rule 1 reads as follows:

“1. Modes of paying money under decree.—

(1)All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:—

(a)by deposit into the court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank; or (b)out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing; or (c)otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs.

(2)Where any payments is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgment due. (3)Where money is paid by postal money order or through a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the money order or payment through bank, as the case may be, shall accurately state the following particulars, namely:— (a)the number of the original suit;

(b)the names of the parties or where there are more than two plaintiffs