P MOHANRAJU Vs. K SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 27.7.2007 made in F.E.A.No,38 of 2006 in R.E.A.No.15 of 2006 in R.E.P.No,39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THE order passed in R.E.A.No,38 of 2006 in R.E.A.No.15 of 2006 in R.E.P.No,39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Namakkal is under challenge in this revision. THE respondent is the decree holder in O.S.No.11 of 2005 who had filed R.E.P.No,39 of 2006 to execute the decree. According to the revision petitioner, an exparte order was passed in the said execution petition against him. To set aside the same, he had filed R.E.A.No.15 of 2006 which was also dismissed for default. To restore R.E.A.No.15 of 2006, he had filed R.E.A.No,38 of 2006 which was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge,Namakkal on the ground that there is no merit in the application. O.S.No.11 of 2005 was decreed on 12.8.2005 to realise the amount due under the suit promissory note. Even during the pendency of the suit, the property scheduled to the execution petition was attached. Neither the said order of attachment nor the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.11 of 2005 was challenged by the revision petitioner by way of revision or by preferring an appeal. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that even if the revision petitioner has got any valid grounds of objection, he shall be directed to deposit 50% of the decree amount to the credit of R.E.P.No,39 of 2006 in O.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Namakkal.