A MARIAMMAL Vs. V S BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.1997 of the Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A.No.274 of 1991 in C.M.A.No.33 of 1991, allowing the Petition filed by the Respondent / First Defendant under Order 34 Rule 5 C.P.C permitting him to deposit the Decree Amount. The Plaintiff / Decree Holder is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O.S.No.353 of 1978:- The First Defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the Plaintiff on the Mortgage Deed dated 07.05.1975. Since the amount was not paid, the Plaintiff has filed O.S.No.353 of 1978 on the above Mortgage Deed. A Preliminary Decree was passed on 10.08.1979 for Rs.21,568/- with subsequent Interest. In I.A.No.2804 of 1980 in O.S.No.353 of 1978, a Final Decree was also passed on 23.02.1981.

(3.) AGGRIEVED over the order of the District Judge, Dindigul the Plaintiff has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. Assailing the Impugned Order, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Decree Holder has submitted that even without obtaining the permission from the Court, amount has been deposited in I.A.No.274 of 1991 and that the same is not in compliance with Or.34 R.5 C.P.C. It is further submitted that when the Decree Holder has also paid the amount of Rs.32,470/- to another Decree Holder in E.P.No.73 of 1987, the Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the same and erred in finding that the First Defendant is entitled to deposit the Decree Amount in I.A.No.274 of 1991. Drawing the attention of the Court to the amount payable, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that the amount deposited is insufficient and the Appellate Court erred in allowing I.A.No.274 of 1991. It is further submitted that without properly appreciating the points involved the Appellate Court erred in holding that the Application could be filed at any stage before the Confirmation of the Sale.