LAWS(MAD)-2013-3-224

THANGARAJU Vs. SRINIVASAN

Decided On March 04, 2013
THANGARAJU Appellant
V/S
SRINIVASAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has arisen out of fair and decretal order dated 16.8.2007 made in R.E.A. No. 153 of 2007 in R.E.A. No. 67 of 2007 in R.E.P. No. 64 of 2005 in O.S. No. 59 of 1999 on the file of Sub-Court, Attur. The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner/Judgment-Debtor would submit that the Respondent herein as the Plaintiff filed a Suit in O.S. No. 59 of 1999 for Specific Performance, which was decreed after contest. He preferred REP No. 31 of 2004 for execution of Sale Deed and the same was executed on 21.4.2005. After execution of Sale Deed, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein filed R.E.P. No. 64 of 2005 for possession of the property. During that period, the Revision Petitioner/Defendant's a nephew, i.e. brother's son filed a Suit in O.S. No. 65 of 2006 on the file of Sub-Court for partition and separate possession of 9/40th share in the property. Hence, the Defendant/Revision Petitioner herein filed a Petition in REA No. 67 of 2007 to stay the Execution proceeding which was dismissed for default on 19th June 2007. Hence, the Defendant/Revision Petitioner herein is constrained to file an Application in REA No. 153 of 2007 for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of the stay Petition. After contest, the Application in REA No. 153 of 2007 was dismissed, against which, the present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Defendant/Revision Petitioner.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would, further submit that since the Defendant/Revision Petitioner was not doing well and he went to the hospital, he was unable to appear before the Court on that day. Hence, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner prayed for setting aside the fair and decretal order passed in REA No. 153 of 2007 and to restore REA No. 67 of 2007 in REP No. 64 of 2005 in O.S. No. 53 of 1999.

(3.) The Respondent filed a detailed counter stating that there is no reason for restoring the Petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this Petition.