M CHINNASAMY Vs. A SURESH

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. 58 of 2007 in O. S. No. 20 of 2004, passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode in allowing the Execution Petition 58 of 2007 and fixing the date of sale of proclamation dated 22. 10. 2009.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the property mentioned in the Execution Petition 58 of 2007 has been attached before the Judgment as per the Order 38 Rule 5 (1) and (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit proceedings. The settlement executed by mother Palaniammal is only after filing of the case even though the second appeal is said to be pending in the High Court. It is quite evident that the Execution Petition is of the year 2007 and only with a view to prolong the execution proceedings, the revision petitioner has been conducting the litigation and looking at from any point of view the impugned order of the Executing Court does not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality and per contra the order passed by the Executing Court is a fair, just valid and an equitable one based on the facts and circumstances and the case viewed in an integral fashion and consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails.

(3.) IN the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the order dated 08. 10. 2009 in E. P. No. 58 of 2007 in O. S. No. 20 of 2004, passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Court, Erode is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in the revision. Consequently, the connected M. P. No. 1 of 2009 is closed.