J. Deivasigamani vs M. Jayakumar

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This Revision has been directed the against the order passed in EA. No. 6932 of 2007 in EP. No. 932

of 2007 in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. EA. No. 6932 of 2007 in EP. No. 932 of 2007

was filed u/s 47 of CPC.

The grievance of the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 is that EP. No. 932 of 2007 was not filed by the Decree

Holder and that the EP. No. 932 of 2007 filed under Order 21 Rule 66 & 90 of CPC was not maintainable.

A perusal of the EP. No. 932 of 2007 will go to show that the said application was filed by the Auction Purchaser of the plaint ''A'' & ''B''

scheduled properties in the final decree passed in I.A. No. 16385 of 2002 in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991, so the contention of the learned Counsel for

the revision petitioner that there was no final decree passed in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 and that it cannot be executed in EP. No. 932 of 2007

cannot be sustainable. A reading of the final decree in I.A. No. 16385 of 2002 in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 (at page 1 of the typed set of papers

filed by the respondent) will go to show that ''A'' & ''B'' scheduled properties to the plaint cannot be partitioned as per the preliminary decree and

on the basis of the Advocate Commissioner''s report, the Advocate Commissioner was directed to sell both ''A'' & ''B'' scheduled properties for

the upset price of Rs. 66,30,000/- since those properties could not be partitioned. Thereafter, a public auction was conducted by the Advocate

Commissioner and in the public auction conducted by the Advocate Commissioner on 08.04.2006 the petitioner in EP. No. 932 of 2007 had

purchased both plaint ''A'' & ''B'' scheduled properties for Rs. 66,30,000/-, which was also deposited to the credit in I.A. No. 16385 of 2002 in

O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 and the sale certificate was also issued in favour of him. In the final decree, the shares to which the parties are entitled to

the sale proceeds of ''A'' & ''B'' scheduled properties has also been dealt with. If the revision petitioner has got any grievance against the final

decree, he ought to have preferred an appeal against the final decree. The learned Executing Court after taking into consideration all the aspects

and the objections raised by the Revision petitioner herein in EA. No. 6932 of 2007 in EP. No. 932 of 2007 in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 has

dismissed the Section 47 application ie., EA. No. 6932 of 2007. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders

passed by the learned Executing Court in EA. No. 6932 of 2007 in EP. No. 932 of 2007 in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 on the file of the Xth

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

In fine, the Revision is dismissed confirming the order passed in EA. No. 6932 of 2007 in EP. No. 932 of 2007 in O.S. No. 2784 of 1991 on

the file of the Xth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.