CRP (NPD) (MD) No. 573 of 2017 and CMP (MD) No. 2592 of 2017. Case: Nagarathinammal and Ors. Vs Pichaimuthu Pillai Anjalaiammal Trust and Ors.. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberCRP (NPD) (MD) No. 573 of 2017 and CMP (MD) No. 2592 of 2017
CounselFor Appellant: Raguvarangopalan, Adv.
JudgesG. Jayachandran, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateMarch 22, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)


G. Jayachandran, J.

  1. The defendants/judgment debtors are the revision petitioners.

  2. The case of the revision petitioners is that in the suit O.S. No. 222/1982 filed for delivery of vacant possession, a decree was passed against them on 30.11.1983. In the E.P. No. 37/84 filed pursuant to the decree, the Execution Court recorded delivery and terminated the E.P. No. 37/84 on 21.07.2012. Aggrieved by the order of termination of the EP, the decree holder filed CRP(MD)No. 1389/2013 wherein, the High Court by order dated 22.07.2015 set aside the order passed in E.P.37/84 dated 21.07.2012 and directed the Execution Court to consider the EP afresh.

  3. As a consequence, the EP was taken up for fresh enquiry and the Execution Court has allowed the EP and ordered delivery of vacant possession on 01.02.2017. Challenging the said order, this revision is filed.

  4. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the Amin has already complied the delivery warrant on 03.04.1984 and the case was posted for recording of delivery. On that day (i.e.) 06.04.1984, the delivery was not recorded by the Court, though it was only an administrative function. Instead, the case was adjourned time and again along with Section 47 application filed by the judgment debtors.

  5. At last, on 14.08.1986, Section 47 application in EA.579/84 was dismissed for default. While so, though the High Court in CRP (MD)No. 1389/2013 directed to consider E.P. No. 37/84 afresh, the EP Court once again ordered delivery of possession when already delivery effected on 03.04.1984 and the same has been deposed by the concerned Amin in an ancillary criminal proceedings initiated against the revision petitioners for trespass into the suit property after taking possession by the decree holder.

  6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied upon the following judgment to buttress his submission:-

    In Palayammal vs. I. Dhanamma and others, reported in 2012-5- L.W. 669, this Court held as follows:-

    ''....when it is alleged that possession was delivered in the execution proceedings and it is alleged that the decree holder was again dispossessed, the remedy available to such decree holder is to approach the Execution Court and not to approach the civil Court for recovery of possession. The said proposition made on behalf of the appellant, according to the view of this Court, is untenable and hence, the same deserves to be discountenanced. Of course, it is true that when execution...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT