L LAKSHMANAN Vs. PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioner/petitioner/decree holder has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 22. 9. 2004 in E. A. No. 110 of 2003 in e. P. No. 70 of 1998 in O. S. No. 591 of 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sub court, Salem in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order 21 Rule 35 sub-clause (4) of Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) TO avoid an avoidable delay, the issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with by this Court to prevent an aberration of justice.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Executing Court, while passing orders in e. A. No. 110 of 2003, has technically dismissed the said Execution Application by stating that the list mentioning the concerned items prepared by the Bailiff has not been clearly stated in the application and wrongly observed that both parties are protracting the REP proceedings from 1998 etc. and has dismissed the application and when the list of inventory movables prepared by the Court Amin at the time of delivery are forming part and parcel of the Court record requiring the revision petitioner once again to furnish a list of movables is only a redundant and surplusage one and as a matter of fact, an Executing Court ought to have delivered substantial justice to the parties overriding hyper technicalities and by not doing so has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.