BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/03/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No. 1996 of 2003 1. K.Sivashankaran(died) 2. S.Meenambal 3. S.Gandhi 3. S.Mahalakshmi 4. S.Nagasundaram ... Petitioners/Decree Holder/Petitioner (R.2 to R.5 L.Rs of the deceased R.1 brought on record as per order of this Court in C.M.P.No.14511 of 2003 dated 23.10.2003) Vs. V.Periakaruppan Ambalam ...Respondent/Judgment Debtor/Respondent Prayer Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 09.09.2002 passed in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk at Madurai. !For Petitioners ... Mr.T.R.Rajaraman ^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Subbiah *** :ORDER
The Civil Revision Petitioner/Decree holder during his life time has filed
the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 09.09.2002 in
E.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997, on the file of the learned District
Munsif, Madurai Taluk, Madurai.
2. Since during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, Civil
Revision Petitioner/Decree Holder died, his legal hires, P.2 to P.5 have been
brought on record as Legal Representatives of the revision petitioner/deceased
plaintiff and hence they figured as revision petitioners in the Civil Revision
3. The Executing Court while passing orders in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in
O.S.No.18 of 1997 as among other things initially observed that “the petitioner
(revision petitioners’ father/deceased plaintiff) has filed a petition before
this Court stating that there is no standing crops and no cultivation in the
suit property. Hence, this E.P. is infructuous in nature and subsequently
dismissed the same as an infructuous one.
4. On perusal, the relief sought for in E.P.NO.62 of 1999 shows that as
per Order 21 Rule 44 and 45, the revision petitioners’ father (deceased
plaintiff) has brought for attaching the standing paddy crops in the schedule
mentioned property and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for harvesting the
crops and to hand over the 52 bags of paddy of 48 measures and 9 measures of
paddy which is due from the respondent to the petitioner till the first Bogum of
1409 fasli with costs.
5. Since the Executing Court has in its order in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in
O.S.No.18 of 1997 on 09.09.2002 has among other things stated that there is no
standing crop and no cultivation in the suit property, it has rightly dismissed
the E.P. as an infructuous one and the said order of the Executing Court does
not suffer from any material or patent illegality, warrant interference in the
hands of this Court and consequently, this Civil Revision Petition fails.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
The District Munsif,
Madurai Taluk at Madurai.