AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—This civil revision petition is against the order dated 3.10.1991 in I.A.No.362 of 1991 in O.S.No.108 of 1989 on the
file of Sub Court, Villupuram.
The facts of the case which led to the filing of the revision petition are as follows:
The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and decree-holder in O.S.No.108 of 1989. Pursuant to the decree, the suit property was sold in court auction
on 17-1-1991 and thereafter, the sale was confirmed on 18-6-1991 and delivery of property was taken on 4-11-1991 and delivery was recorded
on 7-11-1991 and the sale proceeds were deposited in that Court. It is represented on behalf of the judgment-debtor, 1st respondent herein that
the 1st respondent had taken some steps challenging the court auction proceedings. However, he is not in a position to state the stage of the
revision petition said to have been preferred by the 1st respondent for want of instructions from the 1st respondent. Meanwhile, the revision
petitioner seems to have taken I.A.No.362/91 for payment out of the amount due to him on the basis of the decree in the suit O.S. No. 108/89.
The learned Sub-Judge, Villupuram in his order dated 3-10-1991 against which this revision petition is preferred, allowed I.A.362 of 1991
directing that the revision petitioner shall receive the cheque for an amount of Rs. 25,141 on furnishing immovable security against which condition
the petitioners preferred the present revision petition.
Upon hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the condition imposed in the order dated 3.10.1991 is not sustainable in law for the simple
reason that on facts available on record, this Court is not able to come to the conclusion that the 1st respondent has filed any revision petition till
date challenging the sale proceedings. Therefore, the reason for such direction is totally unwarranted. In other words, the court below has failed to
exercise its power in the manner in which the Court ought to have exercised its power. Therefore, the condition imposed for furnishing immovable
security to the tune of Rs. 25,141 is illegal. At this point, I make it clear that in the event if any proceedings is still pending challenging the court
sale, definitely the 1st respondent shall have the benefit of the orders that may be passed in the proceedings if any before the competent Court.
With this observation, the civil revision petition is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.