P K SATHIANESAN Vs. SANKARAN NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against an order admitting the Review of an order dismissing an execution application for want of prosecution. We are unable to find any justification for admitting the review. The learned Judge would appear to have done it on mere compassionate grounds. The order proceeds to state that the decree holder was negligent, but finds support for admitting the review on the basis that no notice was given to the decree holder that his application was proposed to be dismissed. We are not aware of any provision of law enjoining the court to issue such a notice as a condition precedent to the dismissal of an execution petition for want of prosecution. The decree holder was represented in court and his counsel was present in court when the application was dismissed. On the merits therefore the order cannot therefore be supported

(2.) Mr. Nilakanta Iyer appearing for the decree holder respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is incompetent. O.47 R.7(1) (b) C. P. C. provides an appeal when a review is admitted in contravention of R.4 of the said order. R.4 (1) states that where it appears to the court that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application. The court having said that the decree holder was negligent admitted the review on a wrong conception as to the necessity for a notice and we have already stated that notice of the kind referred to by the Judge is not required by law. The order is therefore clearly appealable. R.7(1) states that the order admitting the review may be appealed against immediately or the order may be challenged in the appeal against the final order. The preliminary objection is therefore overruled.

(3.) In the result, the appeal has to be allowed and we decide accordingly. The appellant will receive his costs in the appeal from the respondent.