C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2350 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 22.07.2021

Pronounced on : 29.10.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

C.R.P.(MD).No.2350 of 2019

L.Sukumar

:Petitioner/Respondent/

3^rd Party/3^rd Respondent

Vs.

1.D.Venkada Subramaniyan

:1^st Respondent/1^st Respondent/

Petitioner/Plaintiff

2.N.Suresh Babu

3.G.N.Madhana Gopal

:Respondents 2 & 3/

Respondents 2 &3/Defendants 1 & 2

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India to set aside the Order and Decree dated

23.09.2019 made in E.A.No.23 of 2019 in E.P.No.703 (A) of 2012 in

O.S.No.263 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif, Palani,

Dindigul District.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar

For 1^st Respondent

: Mr.D.Venkatesh

For Respondents

: No Appearance

2 and 3

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order

passed in E.A.No.23 of 2019 in I.A.No.703 (A) of 2012 in O.S.No.263

of 2012, dated 23.09.2019, on the file of the Principal District

Munsif Court, Palani, dismissing the petition filed under Order 21

Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.The revision petitioner is the petitioner in the

interlocutory application and a third party to the suit proceedings.

The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.263 of

2012, against the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 and one

D.Rajendran, claiming permanent injunction restraining the

defendants from damaging the north-south wall situated on the

western side of the plaintiff's house and from making any temporary

or permanent constructions therein.

1/6

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2350 of 2019

3.The plaintiff has also filed an application in I.A.No.572 of

2012, under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

claiming temporary injunction and obtained interim orders, dated

14.09.2012. During the subsistence of the interim order, since the

defendants have violated the interim orders passed by the Trial

Court, the plaintiff has filed a petition in I.A.No.703(A) of 2012,

under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure to punish the

defendants for disobeying the orders of the Court by attachment of

their property and by arresting them and committal to the Civil

Prison.

4.It is not in dispute that the learned District Munsif has

passed an order in I.A.No.703 (A) of 2012, dated 10.04.2017 for

settlement of proclamation. It is also not in dispute that

subsequently attached property was sold in Court auction and that

one Sukumar had purchased the property in Court auction sale held on

09.08.2017.

5.It is also not in dispute that sale was confirmed on

12.10.2017 and sale certificate was issued to the Court auction

purchaser Sukumar on 28.09.2018.

6.The revision petitioner, who is none other than the Court

auction purchaser Sukumar's sister's daughter, claiming title to the

said property on the basis of Will, dated 27.01.2018, alleged to

have been executed by the said Sukumar, who died subsequently on

26.08.2018, has filed the above application under Order 21 Rule 16

of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission for filing the

execution petition to take possession of the property purchased in

Court auction.

7.The learned District Munsif, Palani, after enquiry has passed

the impugned order, dated 23.09.2019, dismissing the said petition.

Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner in

E.A.No.23 of 2019 has come forward with the present Civil Revision

Petition.

8.It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff alone has filed

the counter statement and contested the said petition in E.A.No.23

of 2019, whereas, the defendants 1 and 2 have neither filed any

counter statement nor raised any objection. The objections raised

by the plaintiff are two fold. The first objectio