High CourtsSingle Bench(1998) 03 MAD CK 0085

K. Kalimuthu (died) and 4 others vs Athmajothi alias Krishnamurthy and another

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 March 1998 · Citation: (1998) 1 CTC 558 : (1998) 2 MLJ 520

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. D. Dinakaran, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P.No. 2759 of 1996

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 358 words

P. D. Dinakaran, J.

1.

Heard both the parties.

2.

The above revision is directed against the order of sale proclamation dated 10.10.96 in E.P.No.285 of 1994 to execute the decree made in

O.S.No.160 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, for an admitted total sum of Rs.22,260 as on 10.10.96.

3.

I am rather surprised to note that even before the date of the said sale proclamation dated 10.10.96, the revision petitioner had deposited a sum

of Rs.22,500 with the learned District Munsif Court at Mannargudi, to the credit of the above suit, namely O.S.No.160 of 1981. But still, the

execution Court, namely the learned District Munsif, Mannargudi, overlooked that deposit and passed a sale proclamation on 10.10.96. Hence,

the above revision.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contends that in view of Order 21, Rule 55, C.P.C., where, once an amount decreed with costs

are paid into the Court, the attachment shall be deemed to be withdraw. As admittedly, in the instant case, the entire decree amount with costs has

no jurisdiction to order for the sale proclamation on 10.10.96.

5.

The learned counsel for the respondents also admitted the fact that the amount deposited by the revision petitioner is lying with the Court below

to the credit of the above suit, and the respondents herein have taken an application for payment of the amount deposited in the Court below to the

credit of the above suit.

6.

I am therefore satisfied that the sale proclamation dated 10.10.96 made in E.P.No.285 of 1994 in O.S.No.160 of 1991 by the learned District

Munsif, Mannargudi, is contrary to Order 21, Rule 55 , C.P.C., and is therefore, totally without jurisdiction. Hence, the above sale proclamation is

set aside, and the revision is allowed.

7.

While allowing the above revision, the execution Court, namely, the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, is directed to permit the respondents to

withdraw the decree amount and dispose the execution petition within one month from the mate of receipt of this order.

8.

In the result, the revision is allowed. However, there will be no orders as to costs.