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
17 paragraphs · 285 wordsG. Rajasuria, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order dated 17.12.2012 passed in E.P. No. 123 of 2009,
by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, in O.S. No. 116 of 1998, by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge,
Kumbakonam. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri decoeur of his client to the effect that the lower Court passed the following
order in E.A. No. 64 of 2012 as under:
E.A. No. 64 of 2012 is allowed in the view of endorsement made by the Respondent Counsel, Respondent is directed to pay not less than Rs.
14,000/- on 08.01.2013.
(Extracted as such)
According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the E.P. amount is Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Forty Thousand Only),
whereas the Court ordered that a sum of Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand only) should be paid on or before 08.01.2013 in the E.P. for
sale, which is an onerous direction.
I am at a loss to understand and that there is also no knowing of fact as to how the judgment debtor can come forward legally and put forth such
a plea as though such order is violative of law.
At the first instance, I would like to point out that the Executing Court showed over indulgence and the judgment debtor was not even entitled to
such an order, however, out of sympathy apparently, the Executing Court gave some concession by passing such an order. Wherefore, absolutely
no interference is warranted by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is dismissed. No costs.