IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:10.07.2007 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM CRP.NPD.NO.1865 of 2007 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2007 1.Ramanujam 2.Jagadeesan ...Petitioners Vs. 1.Periyammal 2.Tamilselvi 3.Rajendran 4.Gunasekaran 5.Chinnaponnu 6.Chandran 7.Gnanavel 8.Jayavel 9.V.Rajamani 10..E.Ethirajulu ..Respondents. The Civil Revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem dated 11.4.2007 in R.E.P.No.237 of 2004 in O.S.No.514 of 1983. For Petitioner : Miss. P.T.Asha for M/s Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondents : Mr.D.Shivakumaran O R D E R
Challenge is made to the order made in REP.No.237 of 2004 wherein the suit filed in O.S.No.514 of 1983 for specific performance was put to execution.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.After passing the decree in a suit for specific performance in the year 1986, a challenge was made by the defendants against the said decree before the appellate forum. The appellate Court allowed the appeal subject to the condition that the plaintiffs/decree holder shall deposit a further sum of Rs.67,000/-. But they have not complied with the said conditional order. Instead, a petition in E.P.No.237 of 2004 was laid for execution of the decree and also for delivery of possession of the property.
4. The main contention that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that originally the Letters Patent Appeal was filed before this Court by the petitioners/defendants in LPA.No.62 of 2001 and while disposing of the said appeal, there was a direction to the respondents/plaintiffs to deposit a further sum of Rs.67,000/-
within a period of thirty days from the date of the order i.e. on 19.3.2004. So as per the order, they should have deposited the amount on or before 18.4.2004, but the said deposit was made only on 19.4.2004. Hence, they have failed to comply with the orders passed in LPA. Apart from this, when the deposit was made by getting a challen from the court, the petitioners/judgment debtors have to be put in notice. Under such circumstances, the execution petition should have been dismissed.
5. Per contra, it is contended by the respondents that it is true that there was a direction in Letters Patent Appeal to deposit a further sum of Rs.67,000/- on or before 18.4.2004, but it was deposited only on 19.4.2004. Since the last date 18.4.2004 was a holiday, he could not pay the amount in time and apart from that once there was a direction for the deposit to be made and it was done, there is no need for putting the petitioners/judgment debtors on notice . Under such circumstances, both the contentions raised before the Court below are erroneous and ordered to be rejected and rightly too. Hence the Civil Revision petition has to be dismissed.
6. After considering the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court had no option than to dismiss the Civil Revision petition. It is not the fact in controversy that the suit was filed for specific performance in the year 1983 and the suit was decreed in the year 1986 and when the case was taken up for execution of the decree before this Court, a direction was issued to the respondents herein to deposit a further sum of Rs.67,000/- on or before 19.3.2004 and it is true that one month time was granted till 18.4.2004, but the amount has been deposited on 19.4.2004 and it is not the fact in controversy that 18.4.2004 was a Sunday and since it was a holiday, the deposit has been made on the next working day, i.e well within the time and notice has also been issued to the opposite party. The deposit has been made as per the direction of this Court well within the time and hence the lower court has rightly allowed the execution petition and rightly too.
7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, MP.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.
VJY
To
Additional Subordinate Judge,
Salem