The civil revision petitioner/defendant have projected this civil revision petition before this Court as against the order dated 25.06.2008 in I.A No.636 of 2008 in O.S. No.5842 of 1999 passed by the learned XVII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai, directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh into the Court on or before 24.06.2008 and further the matter has been directed to be posted on 25.06.2008.
2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A No.636 of 2008 has inter-alia opined that "since the suit itself was for the recovery of the outstanding on the Cancard facility extended to the petitioners and the suit was decreed long back and also since the petitioners have not denied their liability, it is deemed fit that the conditional order shall be passed in this matter and accordingly passed a conditional order of directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh into the Court on or before 25.06.2008 for allowing the application etc."
3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the trial Court ought to have seen that the revision petitioners filed I.A. No.636 of 2007 under Order 21 Rule 26 of C.P.C for stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No.1141 of 2007 till the disposal of condone delay application and since the petitioners have not paid the conditional amount of Rs.25,000/- before the Executing Court, an attachment has been ordered and in short, the Executing Court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case have imposed onerous condition by passing a conditional order in directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh before the Court below on or before 25.06.2008, and the petitioners are disputing the interest claimed by the respondent/decree holder and the claiming of interest by the respondent/decree holder is an exorbitant one and is not permitted in law and before the Executing Court an application to set aside the exparte decree and also Section 5 condonation application are pending and moreover, the Executing Court ought to have granted sufficient time to the petitioner to pay a conditional amount knowing well that the petitioners were not even capable of paying Rs.25,000/- as ordered in the Executing Court and the petitioners have prayed for an issuance of an order to deposit decree amount in installment but the same has not been considered and in any event the order of the trial Court suffers from infirmity and therefore, this has to be corrected by this Court sitting in revision.
4. It transpires from records that the conditional order passed in I.A. No.636 of 2008 in O.S. No.5842 of 1999 dated 23.06.2008 has not been complied with by the revision petitioners and ultimately the Court passed an order on 25.06.2008 stating that "conditional order not complied with petition is dismissed with costs".
5. It is pertinent to point out that this Court in C.R.P. (NPD) No.2187 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 on 09.07.2008 has passed a conditional order of stay subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the credit of E.P. No. 1141 of 2007 in O.S. No.5842 of 1999 on or before 15.07.2008 failing which the interim stay granted shall stand vacated automatically without reference to this Court and the respondent/decree holder is at liberty to proceed with the Execution Petition.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners brings to the notice of this Court that a sum of Rs. 1 lakh has been deposited before the trial Court on 14.07.2008.
7. On going through the order passed by the trial Court in I.A No.636 of 2008 dated 23.06.2008 and later order dated 25.06.2008 this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out a case before this Court for interfering with the orders passed by the trial Court in as much as the suit has been decreed long before and the order passed by the trial Court by no stretch of imagination cannot be construed to be an unreasonable one based on the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion and the same does not require any interference in the hands of this Court and consequently, the civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed, in the interest of justice.
8.In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A No.636 of 2008 is affirmed by this Court. It appears that I.A. No.11447 of 2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is pending along with an application to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore, on the basis of equity, prudence and even as an equitable relief this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the I.A No.11447 of 2007 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties are directed to lend a helping hand in regard to the completion of proceedings and the trial Court is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court as to the disposal of I.A. No. 11447 of 2007 within the time fixed by this Court.
30.07.2009 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No prm To
1.The XVII Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai,
2.The Sub Assistant Registrar, Judicial Section, High Court Madras.
(To Watch and Report) M.VENUGOPAL, J.
prm C.R.P (N.P.D) No.2187 of 2008 and M.P. No.1 of 2008 30.07.2009