M CHINNUSAMY Vs. N CHINNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/ respondent /judgment debtor/ defendant has projected this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 08. 10. 2009 in E. P. No. 59 of 2007 in O. S. No. 43 of 2004, passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode in allowing the Execution Petition 59 of 2007.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the order passed by the Executing Court in E. P. No. 59 of 2007 in O. S. No. 43 of 2004, dated 08. 10. 2009, suffers from material irregularities and if the same is allowed to stand, then, it will cause great hardship and loss to the revision petitioner and that the petitioner is not the sole owner of the property and therefore, there cannot be any attachment over the property when admittedly there has been other claims to the suit mentioned property and as a matter of fact, the petitioner is only bonafidely protecting his interest and the respondent cannot seek for an amendment of the properties being brought for sale and therefore prays for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) ON going through the orders passed by the Executing Court in E. P. No. 59 of 2007, dated 08. 10. 2009, this Court is of the considered view that the property mentioned in the Execution Petition has already been attached before the Judgment as per the Order 38 Rule 5 (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Code in the suit and the revision petitioner has obtained the petition mentioned property through a settlement only executed by mother Palaniammal and even though the second appeal is pending before the Honourable High Court, the revision petitioner has been dragging on the proceedings before the Executing Court and resultantly, the Executing Court has allowed the Execution Petition and fixed the date as 22. 10. 2009 for determining the auction and looking at from any point of view the order aforesaid passed by the Executing Court does not suffer from any patent illegality or procedural irregularity and per contra, the Executing Court has exercised its discretion in a proper valid manner and in short, the said order is a fair and just one based on the facts and circumstances which float on the service and in that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition fails.