The revision petitioner herein is the defendant / judgment debtor in the suit filed for recovery of money based on promissory note. Pursuant to the decree passed on 25.04.1996, for the realisation of the decree amount, the decree holder has filed E.P.116/1996 in which the revision petitioner has filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 in E.A.No.343/2000 to set aside the sale held on 01.06.1999 in respect of the item 1 of the petition mentioned property. The said application came to be dismissed by the Execution Court on 17.06.2003. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the revision petitioner has preferred CMA.No.10/2003 before the Sub-court, Padmanabapuram. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Execution Court. Hence the present revision petition.
2.The sum and substance of the issue raised by the revision petitioner herein is that, while the execution petition was pending, as per the Court's permission, he had deposited a sum of Rs.31,602/- in State Bank of India Kalkulam at Takalay. On 25.09.2000, he filed full satisfaction petition before the execution court in I.A.No.135/2000. Therefore the court auction sale effected on 01.06.1999 ought to be set aside.
3.The Execution Court after hearing both sides and on verifying the records dismissed the application E.A.No.343/2000 on the ground that no permission was granted by the Court to deposit any money as stated by the petitioner. The alleged deposit is made long after confirmation of sale. Hence such deposit shall not be accepted.
4.The appeal CMA.No.10/2003, preferred against the dismissal of the application E.A.No.343/2000 was also dismissed. The appellate court in addition to the reasons stated by the Execution Court for the dismissal of the application has also pointed out that, towards satisfaction of the decree amount, the second item property was brought to court auction and the auction was duly confirmed on 01.06.1999. Thereafter the court auction purchaser has taken delivery of the property and same was recorded on 24.01.2000 in E.A.No.172/1999. No appeal is preferred against the delivery of the property. The application E.A.No.186/1999 filed by the judgement debtor/ revision petitioner to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity was also dismissed. Thereafter, the application E.A.No.343/2000 is filed 16 months after the confirmation of sale, as if the decree amount along with poundage has been deposited with the permission of the court, a statement which is found to be false.
5.Aggrieved by the concurrent finding on facts, the revision petition is filed by the judgment debtor on the ground that he has deposited into the credit of the decree after getting challan from the court, hence the order of the courts below is contrary to law. The application to set aside the sale was erroneously dismissed while the petition seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal is pending before the appellate court. The decree holder himself is the auction purchaser which the execution failed to note.
6.In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that, for the satisfaction of the decree amount, the Execution Court ordered to proceed against the second item of the schedule alone initially. While so, without proceeding against that property, the first item property was put to auction wherein the decree holder himself participated in the auction and declared as successful bidder without the leave of the court.
7.This court to verify whether the above statement made across the bar is true, directed the Trial Court to send for all the material papers. On receipt of the records, this court scanned the entire records and found the above averment made by the counsel for the revision petitioner is baseless.
8.First of all, there is no piece of material to show that the revision petitioner sought permission of the court to deposit the decree amount and granted. Mere deposit of decree amount in a bank account on his own has no bearing or binding effect, more so, when such deposit is made one and half years after confirmation of sale.
9.Regarding the submission made regarding the violation of selling the first item of property without proceeding against the second item of property as per the order of the Execution Court, this court on perusal of the records finds there is no violation as alleged.
10.The daily orders recorded in the docket of the Execution Petition No.116/1996 in O.S.No.26/1996 reveals that, the EP has been taken on file and notice to the respondent ordered to appear on 20.09.1996. The respondent has refused to receive the notice. Hence, notice has been affixed and the same has been recorded by the court in its proceedings dated 20.09.1996. Court has also ordered fresh notice to respondent through Court and post. In the subsequent hearings, the Court has permitted to take substitute service through paper publication. The decree holder has filed the test process with delay excuse petition and same has been accepted. On 08.01.1997 the appearance of Mr.C.John Rose, Advocate for respondent has been recorded. The notice about sale papers was also served on him. On 23.06.1997, the Court has fixed upset price for the properties and ordered item No. 2 alone be sold initially.
11.For four times, the second item of property was brought to auction, but there was no bidder. Hence the decree holder has filed E.A.No.159/1998 under Order 21 Rule 72 CPC seeking permission to participate in the auction. Despite notice received by the respondent, she has not filed counter. Therefore, the Execution Court vide order dated 29.06.1998 has allowed the petition permitting the decree holder to bid in the auction. Thereafter, on 10.02.1999 the second item of property has been sold to the decree holder for Rs.12,050/-. The sale amount has been adjusted and set off towards decree amount. The decree holder has also paid the poundage of Rs 391.50/- on the same day. After the sale of second item of property, the Execution Court has proceeded against the first item property since the proceeds recovered through sale of second item property was not sufficient to record full satisfaction of the decree claim.
12.From the records, it could be clearly seen that, while the second item property was sold in auction on 10.02.1999, the first item of property was sold in auction subsequently on 24.3.1999 strictly in compliance of the earlier order dated 23.06.1997. Therefore, the sale which is impugned does not suffer any irregularity or illegality or deviation of the previous order passed by the Execution Court.
13.The first item property has been sold in the auction held on 24.03.1999 and the same has been confirmed on 01.06.1999. After confirmation of the sale, the revision petitioner herein has filed the application on 31.10.2000 as if the court has permitted him to deposit the decree amount and in pursuance to the permission, he has deposited the decree amount with poundage fees in the Bank. The Courts below have rightly pointed out that no permission was granted as alleged. The falsehood in the averment made by the revision petitioner in his application has resulted in dismissal of the petition and appeal.
14.It is unfortunate, the mischievous conduct of the revision petitioner making false averment and misrepresentation has continued before this court also. The typeset of papers filed along with the revision petition omitting the relevant portion of the docket daily orders has misled this Court to admit this revision petition at the inception ten years ago, thereby the revision petitioner has successfully deprived the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. While scrutinising the back papers, the diabolic design adopted by the revision petitioner to delay the completion of execution by filing innumerous applications under one pretext or other including the petition to set aside the sale, review petitions and transfer petition is well founded.
15.The Supreme Court recently has said, ''court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process''. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth. ( Dynandeo Sabaji Naik -vs- pradnya Prakash Khadekar ? By Hon'ble Justice Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud- reported in 2017(2) CTC 776)
16.The revision petitioner herein has ventured to involve in a litigative gamble taking liberty with the truth. In the result, he has contributed to the choking of legal system through his frivolous and groundless petitions. Hence, this court is forced to impose exemplary costs on the revision petitioner for abusing the process of the court.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabapuram..