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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Velmurugan, J
Jailani – Appellant
Versus
M.Gregory Retnaraj – Respondent
REV.APLC(MD)No.44 of 2020 in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.303 of 2020 | C.M.P(MD)No.3775 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

The review petition is dismissed as infructuous since the underlying execution petition was resolved.

Headnote:This court reviewed a prior decision under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2, alongside Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. The case involved a long-standing dispute concerning possession based on a decree and execution petition, with the court finding no merit in the appeal and dismissal being warranted. The main issue addressed was the merit of the review petition which was found to be infructuous due to case resolution. The court concluded that no further action was required regarding the review, thus dismissing it.

Table of Content
1. application for review of previous court order regarding possession. (Para 1 , 2)

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN REV.APLC(MD)No.44 of 2020 in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.303 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.3775 of 2020 Jailani ... Petitioner/Respondent .Vs.

M.Gregory Retnaraj ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to review the order of this Court made in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.303 of 2020, dated 9.3.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ananth C.Rajesh

O R D E R

This Review Petition is filed to review the order of this Court made in C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.303 of 2020, dated 9.3.2020.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3.This Court, while disposing of the above CRP(NPD)(MD)No.303 of

2020, passed the order as hereunder:

‘’2.The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks adjournment. But, this Court is not inclined to grant adjournment, since the suit is pending from 1995 and the records show that the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and he has also got the sale deed registered through the Court and thereafter, he filed the execution Petition for delivery of possession based on the sale deed document NO.3647 of 2015, Since the Execution Petition is filed only for delivery based on the decree passed by the appellate Court and the sale deed executed by the Court in favour of the respondent/Plaintiff and the Execution Court has also considered all the facts and ordered for delivery, this Court does not find any merit in the case, except the fact that the Petitioner is successfully protracting the case for 25 years an still she wants to protract and evade delivery of possession. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the Execution Court in E.P.No.45 of 2018.There is no merit in the revision and the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.NO.1754 of 2020 is closed.’’

3.On verification, execution Petition in E.P.No.45 of 2018 in O.S.No.

131/1995, on the file of Sub-Court, Valliyoor was disposed of on 30.09.2021 and delivery recorded and E.P terminated. In view of the same nothing survives for further adjudication in this Review Petition.

4.Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

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