High CourtsSingle Bench

Arusiya Thaika Trust vs Dhanasekaran

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 MAD CK 0557

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.Nisha Banu
CASE NUMBER
2639 of 2017

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 437 words
1.

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the District Judge, Ramanathapuram, to dispose of the execution

proceedings, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

2.

Since the issue involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, these Civil Revision petitions are taken up together for hearing

and are being disposed of by this common order.

3.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suits and he filed the suits for the relief of ejectment and for recovery of damages for the use and occupation

of the buildings and the same were allowed, against which, the respondent has filed first appeals on the file of Sub Court, Ramanathapuram and the

same were also dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, second appeals were preferred by the respondents, before this Court and the same were

also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the execution petitions, but, the respondent has not come forward to contest the same and in

order to drag on the proceedings, without any valid reason, has sought for several adjournments and therefore, the petitioner has filed the present

petitions seeking early disposal of the same.

4.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5.

The prayer in these petitions itself is with a limited scope for speedy disposal of the execution petitions and therefore, no notice is necessary to

the respondent.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of these cases, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if a direction is issued to the

trial Court, for speedy disposal of the said execution proceedings. Accordingly, having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for

the petitioner and also taking into consideration the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any

opinion with regard to the merits of the case, directs the learned District Judge, Ramanathapuram, to dispose of the execution proceedings in

E.P.No.14 of 2017 in O.S.No.48 of 2012, E.P.No.15 of 2017 in O.S.No.50 of 2012, E.P.No.16 of 2017 in O.S.No. 51 of 2012, E.P.No.17

of 2017 in O.S.No.54 of 2012, E.P.No.19 of 2017 in O.S.No.57 of 2012, E.P.No.20 of 2017 in O.S.No.67 of 2012, E.P.No. 21 of 2017 in

O.S.No.68 of 2012 and E.P.No.22 of 2017 in O.S.No.56 of 2012, on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7.

With the above direction, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.