AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Rajasuria, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary
and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus :
Inveighing and challenging the order dated 13-6-2011 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore in unnumbered E. A. of
2011 in E.P.No. 122 of 2009 in O. S. No. 10 of 2001 in rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioner/defendant u/s 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, this Civil revision petition is focussed on various grounds.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that even without numbering the application filed u/s 47 of the Code of Civil
procedure, the lower Court passed the order as though no prima facie case was made out in the application and that requires to be set aside and
the lower Court may be directed to number the application and deal it with as per law.
A re''sume of relevant facts as stood exposited from the available records has to be set out thus :
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance as against the revision petitioner/defendant. The decree for specific performance was
passed; as against, which, an appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority. While so, at the execution stage when the
decree holder was trying to get the sale deed executed in his favour, the said application u/s 47 of the CPC was filed by the revision petitioner
herein/judgment debtor/defendant contending mainly that the suit is bad for want of impleadment of the Bank Manager of the Bank concerned with
whom the judgment debtor deposited the amount. The one other suit in O. S. No. 639 of 2005 filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor as
against the said Bank Manager concerned before the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore was dismissed for default. The lower Court
referred to Section 47 of the CPC and the relevant ingredients embodied therein and held that prima facie no case was made out.
I could see that u/s 47 of the Code of Civil procedure, the main plea raised by the revision petition/judgment debtor was that the suit for specific
performance filed by the decree holder was bad for want of impleadment of the necessary party namely, the Bank Manager. In my opinion, ex
facie and prima facie the said plea is not tenable under law and prima facie the said Bank Manager with whom the judgment debtor had some
transaction is having nothing to do with specific performance suit.
Hence, I am of the considered view that absolutely there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the lower Court. It is not that in all cases
blindly, the Court is expected to number application filed u/s 47 of the CPC and deal with it; if prima facie, no case is made out, then the lower
Courts are not enjoined to mechanically number it and waste its judicial time. Accordingly, I find no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed.
However, there is no order as to costs.