Advocates:
['R MANICKAVEL', '', 'prabhu saravanan', 'p deepika', 'a akash', 'anusuya balaji', 's poovendhan', 'a ramakrishnan']

C.R.P.No.87 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12-01-2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

CRP No.87 of 2023

Sri Kannabiran Temple,

Represented by its Hereditary Trustee

M.Jayaraman,

S/o.T.Mayava Ramanuja Dasar,

No.25-A, Chinnakuzhanthai Street,

Maduma Nagar, Sembium,

Chennai-600 011.

... Petitioner

vs.

T.Pandurangan

... Respondent

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India directing the learned IX Assistant City Civil Court at

Chennai to dispose of the EP No.4011 of 2019 in OS No.1513 of 2001 filed

by the petitioner by strictly adhering to the Rules laid down under the Tamil

Nadu (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules 2007, within a

reasonable time, as stipulated by this Court and the recent judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar

Page 1 of 8

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

C.R.P.No.87 of 2023

Gandhi [(2021) 6 SCC 418] to dispose of the pending EP in an expeditious

manner.

For Petitioner

: Mr.R.Manickavel

For Respondent

: Mr.A.D.Janarthanan

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India directing the learned IX Assistant City Civil Court

at Chennai to dispose of the EP No.4011 of 2019 in OS No.1513 of 2001

filed by the petitioner by strictly adhering to the Rules laid down under the

Tamil Nadu (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules 2007,

within a reasonable time, as stipulated by this Court and the recent judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra

Kumar Gandhi [(2021) 6 SCC 418] to dispose of the pending EP in an

expeditious manner.

2. The petitioner, who is the owner of the property and

instituted proceedings for eviction of the respondent, who is the tenant. OS

Page 2 of 8

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

C.R.P.No.87 of 2023

No.1513 of 2001 filed by the petitioner was decreed in favour of the

plaintiff and the First Appeal Suit filed in AS No.291 of 2010 was

dismissed by the First Appellate Court. The Second Appeal filed in SA

No.311 of 2017 before the High Court was also dismissed on 15.06.2017.

Thus, the rights between the parties were crystallised and consequently, the

revision petitioner/decree-holder filed EP No.4011 of 2019.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Execution Court is

granting adjournments after adjournments and the respondent is also

dragging on the proceedings by filing unnecessary petitions under Section

47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The respondent filed CRP No.3882 of 2022 and the said

Civil Revision Petition was dismissed on 28.11.2022.

5. The Executing Court is expected to dispose of the Execution

Petition, within a period of six months. Unnecessary Interlocutory

Applications and frivolous applications filed in execution proceedings are to

be disposed of without causing any undue delay and if this Court finds that

Page 3 of 8

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

C.R.P.No.87 of 2023

all such applications are filed only to drag the execution proceedings, then

exemplary and maximum costs are to be imposed. The parties filing

Interlocutory Application to drag on the proceedings or otherwise, must be

dealt with sternly without granting unnecessary adjournments.

6. Adjournment is an exception. The Courts are expected to

dispose of the matter vigilantly and by avoiding unnecessary adjournments

at the instance of the parties, who may have several ideas for getting such

adjournments. The Court cannot aid to achieve such ill-motive of the

litigants and ensure that the petitions are decided consistently and regulating

the same with reference to the cases of its own.

7. The Supreme Court on several occasions held that the

execution petitions cannot be prolonged and must be decided, within a

period of six months. One such r