VISWANATHAN Vs. MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned Principal District munsif, Gobichettipalayam, made in E. A. No. 2307 of 1973 in E. P. R. 1945 of 1972 in O. S. No. 1528 of 1969 cancelling the order to issue cheque in favour of the revision petitioner.

(2.) VISWANATHAN, the revision petitioner herein, obtained a decree against Sellammal and her minor children in O. S. No. 579 of 1970 on the file of the district Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, on the foot of a promissory note. The properties of the second respondent, viz. Sellammal, were brought to sale by another decree-holder in O. S. No. 1528 of 1969, in pursuance of a money decree. The properties were sold in court auction and after the decree-holder in the said O. S. No. 1528 of 1869 realised the amounts due to him, a sum of rupees 4,785. 16 was available as surplus sale proceeds to the credit of the judgment-debtors in the District Munsif Court Gobichettipalayam. A sum of Rs. 3,500 out of this was attached by the revision petitioner in execution of the decree in O. S. 579 of 1970. The attachment was made absolute on 14-111973. He applied for the issue of a cheque for Rs. 3,198. 05 being the amount to which he is entitled under the decree in his favour. On 20-11-1973, the learned Principal District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, ordered the issue of a cheque for Rs. 3,198. 05 in favour of Thiru K. Nandagopal, advocate for the revision petitioner (decree-holder in O. S. 579 of 1970 ). Subsequently, at about 3-45 p. m. on the same date, an attachment by pro-order was received in the court of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam, from the Sub-Court, Erode. The sub-Court, Erode, by its pro-order in E. P. 298 of 1973 in O. S. 20 of 1970 on its file, ordered the attachment of the entire amount in court deposit. Thereafter the office of the learned District Munsif put up a note which reads as follows-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the order passed by the learned District Munsif subsequently is an order reviewing his earlier order and that he has no jurisdiction to pass suo motu an order reviewing an earlier order. This contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner finds support in a decision of the Bench of the Bombay High court in Danomal v. Union of India, wherein it has been observed that (at p. 360)-