V KATHIRVEL Vs. ARULMOZHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 29.02.2012 made in unnumbered I.A. in O.S.No.22 of 2007, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would pilot his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: This is a peculiar case in which the original mortgagee namely Magizhnan, so to say, the propositus of the respondents herein, purchased one other property subject to discharge of mortgage in favour of the revision petitioners herein to a tune of Rs.30,000/-, but that amount was not repaid and while so, the respondents/plaintiffs herein are trying to enforce their right under the present suit mortgage, which cannot be countenanced and upheld and that would lead to travesty of justice. Accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray for due opportunity to put forth the defence before the lower Court.