This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order and decree dated 07.03.2017 made in E.P.No.102 of 2008 in O.S.No.161 of 1976 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.
2. The brief facts required for the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-
(a) O.S.No.161 of 1976 was filed by the deceased first respondent/plaintiff for evicting the defendant/revision petitioner herein from the suit property and for a direction to pay Rs.54/- to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent and pay future rent till the delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed on 31.08.1978. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.79/79. The First Appellate Court by judgment dated 29.04.1983 allowed the appeal and the defendant was ordered to vacate the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.2 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017
(b) Aggrieved defendant filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.1198/1983 before this court. This court, by judgment dated 11.07.1996, confirmed the Lower Appellate Court judgment and dismissed the defendant's appeal.
(c) In pursuance of confirmation of the decree passed by the First Appellate court in favour of the plaintiff, Execution Petition was filed on 10.07.2008. But the same was returned on 05.08.2008 for the reason that the decree in O.S.No.161/76 shall be filed as a certified copy. After complying with the above, the E.P. was re-presented on 07.08.2008 by the plaintiff and it was numbered.
3. The learned I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, allowed E.P.No.102 of 2008 vide order dated 07.03.2017. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant has filed the present revision petition.
4. The case of the revision petitioner/defendant is that the execution petition is filed beyond the period of 12 years, hence, the same will have be to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.3 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 dismissed as time barred. It is his further contention that on the date of filing the execution petition, the judgment debtor was not alive and therefore, the execution petition against a dead person is nullity and the respondents ought to have preferred the execution petition against the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Ramalingam Chettiar vs P.K.Pattabiraman and another reported in (2001) 4 SCC 96, and submitted that in the absence of any order that the impleadment of newly added or substituted party shall take effect from the date of institution of a suit, the period of limitation so far as the newly added or substituted shall run from the date of their impleadment in the suit.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Decree holder would submit that the execution petition was bonafidely filed within 12 years from the date of decree in the second appeal against the judgment debtor in the suit. Only during the time of sending notice, the respondent came to know about the death of the judgment debtor. When notice was returned as 'not served' and reported dead, steps were taken to implead the legal representatives of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.4 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 deceased judgment debtor and the same was also allowed by the Court below. Therefore, there is no illegality or bar under the law of limitation.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents/decree holder cited reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in Surinder Pal Soni vs. Sohan Lal in Civil Appeal No.5360 of 2019, wherein it has been held that, 'once the appellate Court renders its judgment, it is the decree of the Appellate Court which becomes executable. Hence, the entitlement of the decree holder to execute the decree of the Appellate Court cannot be defeated' and prayed for dismissing the present revision.
7. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent/decree holder and also gone through the documents placed before this Court.
8. A perusal of the order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry, would show that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.5 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 the learned Judge has held that the execution petition filed against the deceased judgment debtor is only a mistake in giving particulars required by order XXI Rule 11 (2) and the defect can be remedied by an amendment under Order XXI Rule 17 (1). Though the petitioner has submitted that the respondents knew about the death of the judgment debtor, there is no evidence to show that the respondents had the knowledge about the death of the judgment debtor prior to filing of the execution petition and the learned Judge has allowed the execution petition by stating that mere quoting of wrong provision of law will not dis-entitle the respondent/decree holder to get the relief sought for in the Execution Petition. The said findings of the Executing Court cannot be found fault with. This court finds no infirmity in the order passed in E.P.No.102 of 2008 in O.S.No.161 of 1976. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.09.2022 Index : Yes / No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.6 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 Internet : Yes sts https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.7 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 To:
1.The I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.8 of 9 C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 J.NISHA BANU, J., sts Order made in C.R.P.No.3004 of 2017 Dated:
01.09.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________ Page No.9 of 9