AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice G. Rajasuria
Animadverting upon the order dated 17.10.2011 passed in E.A. No. 250 of 2011 in E.P. No. 92 of 2010 in O.S. No. 176 of 1994 by the
learned District Munsif, Sirkazhi, this civil revision petition is focussed. Heard both.
Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
This revision is focussed as against the order and decreetal order passed in E.A. No. 250 of 2011, which was one for the following relief:
To give the petitioners 18 months time from the date of the order to vacate and hand over the suit property after removing the super structure to
the plaintiff decree holder.
The lower Court granted five months'' time for vacating and handing over possession of the suit property. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the same, this revision has been focussed.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in all fairness would bring to the knowledge of this Court the earlier order passed by this Court
on 24.08.2011 in CRP No. 3183 of 2011, the operative portion of it would run thus:
More over, the suit schedule property is the only property which forms the subject matter of dispute between the petitioners and the
respondent. If the respondent/decree holder was seeking recovery of possession of some other property, not in the occupation of the
petitioners/judgment debtors, the issue need not have been fought up to this Court at all. When the parties have understood the property and
fought the matter up to this Court, there is no question of raising a dispute with regard to one of the boundaries. Therefore, the dismissal of the
application u/s 47 CPC cannot be said to perverse. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners requests
some time to vacate. The petitioners may be granted sufficient time by the executing Court, considering the hardship involved. Consequently, M.P.
No. 1 of 2011 is also dismissed.
Thereafter alone, the said E.A. No. 250 of 2011 was filed and the lower Court also granted five months'' time, which got expired by March
2012. This civil revision petition itself is pending ever since February 2012 and as such, by this time also sufficient time got elapsed. Hence in these
circumstances, I am of the view that absolutely there is no illegality or perversity in the proceedings resorted to by the lower Court. Accordingly,
this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The learned counsel for the petitioners would make an extempore submission that for handing
over possession, time may be granted till the end of this year. I am of the view that time till the end of July 2012 could be granted and by that time
the petitioners shall hand over delivery of possession of the suit property to the respondent/decree holder.