N. Kuppanan vs Ragunathan

T. Mathivanan, J.—The fair and decreetal orders dated 26.02.2014 and made in E.A. Nos. 33 & 34 of 2014 in E.A. No. 108 of 2013 in E.P. No. 145 of 2008 in O.S. No. 219 of 1986, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, have been challenged in these memorandum of civil revision petitions. With the parties to both revision petitions are one and the same and the issue involved in these revision petitions is also common in nature, these two memorandum of civil revision petitions have been consolidated together, heard jointly and disposed of in this common order.

The revision petitioner herein is the third party to all the proceedings relating to the suit in O.S. No. 219 of 1986 as well as the execution proceedings in E.P. No. 145 of 2008, whereas the respondent herein is the first defendant in the suit.

It is manifested from the records that one Janaki Ammal and Lakshmi Ammal had filed a suit in O.S. No. 219 of 1986, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, as against the respondent herein being the first defendant as well as against one Kamalambal @ Vittalabai Ammal and K. Dhanaraj, seeking the relief of partition of suit A and B schedule mentioned properties into two half shares and put the plaintiffs in possession of one half share and also for future mesne profits.

Ultimately, excepting the schedule mentioned property in the execution petition in E.P. No. 145 of 2008, in respect of other properties, a final decree was passed. Thereafter, it appears from the records that the plaintiffs Janaki Ammal and Lakshmi Ammal and other co-sharers had released their respective shares in favour of the respondent/first defendant, in respect of the property specified in the execution petition and the respondent/first defendant herein had also purchased the remaining shares from the other shareholders. When the matter stood thus, the respondent/first defendant had filed an execution application in E.A. No. 108 of 2013 seeking for delivery of vacant possession. The revision petitioner, who is the third party to the above proceedings, had claimed that he is the sub-tenant under the respondent/first defendant in the suit property and therefore he had taken out an application in E.A. No. 15 of 2009 to stay the order of delivery of physical possession, which was subsequently dismissed. According to the revision petitioner, the dispute between the parties had been thereafter settled and therefore he had agreed to vacate the suit premises on or before 07.11.2013 and in this connection he had also filed a memorandum to that effect.

In the schedule mentioned premises, the revision petitioner/petitioner is running a Tailoring Shop and according to him 25 workers are working in his Tailoring Shop on the basis of daily wages and if the delivery of possession is ordered, he has got no other place excepting to close the Tailoring Shop. He has further contended that though he had agreed to vacate the suit premises on or before 09.02.2014, he was unable to vacate the premises for the reasons specified in his affidavit, which has been filed in support of his petition. Therefore, he had taken out an application before the Court of first instance in E.A. No. 33 of 2014 seeking for granting two more months to vacate the suit premises. Along with the said application, he has also filed another application in E.A. No. 34 of 2014 seeking for the relief of stopping the delivery warrant. Both the applications were contested by the respondent/first defendant. However, the Court of first instance had proceeded to dismiss both the applications by the impugned orders dated 26.02.2014, on the ground that the revision petitioner/petitioner was already granted extension of time thrice to vacate the premises and he had consumed nearly two years for filing the petition one after another and that there would not be any meaning in prolonging the proceedings. The Court of first instance had also observed that the revision petitioner/petitioner shall not be permitted to abuse the process of Court by way of unlawful and disobedient act and therefore both the applications in E.A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 2014 were dismissed as the Court was of considered opinion that the conduct of the revision petitioner/petitioner is clear abuse of process of Court. Challenging the said orders dated 26.02.2014 and made in E.A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 2014, the revision petitioner has come forward with these revision petitions.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has argued that the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have granted two months time to vacate the premises by considering the facts set-forth in the applications, but unfortunately these two applications were dismissed without any justification. He has also submitted that instead of actual rent of Rs. 4,000/-, the revision petitioner had been paying an enhanced rent at Rs. 15,000/- per mensum. However, without taking into consideration of these facts, the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed both the applications, which are not tenable and liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/first defendant has argued that at the first instance, the revision petitioner, who is the third party to the proceedings had taken out an application in E.A. No. 224 of 2010 seeking for extension of time to vacate the premises and that application was allowed on 12.09.2012 granting nine months time to vacate and surrender the possession. Even in spite of granting nine months time, the revision petitioner had not complied with the said order instead he had come forward with another application in E.A. No. 108 of 2013 seeking for the extension of time and the same was also allowed and time was extended till 07.11.2013. Even this time also, he had failed to obey the order of the Court, however he had filed another application in E.A. No. 205 of 2013 and the same was allowed and the time was extended till 09.02.2014 for vacating the premises and to surrender the vacant possession.

In this connection, he would submit that based on the memorandum submitted by the revision petitioner on 13.02.2014, delivery was ordered on 28.02.2014 and in pursuant to the said order, both the applications in E.A. Nos. 33 and 34 of 2014, filed by the revision petitioners seeking extension of time for vacating the premises as well as stopping of order of delivery were dismissed on 26.02.2014. Therefore, he has submitted that the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, did not suffer with any infirmity and that the revision petitioner being the third party shall not be allowed to abuse the process of Court continuously, without rendering any sort of respect of the order passed by the Court.

This Court has perused the materials available in the typed set of papers and also considered the very conduct of the revision petitioner.

As demonstrated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/first defendant by producing the xerox copy of the invitation said to have been extended by the revision petitioner, it is explicit that he had constructed his own shop and he had also inaugurated the same on 12.02.2014 under the name and style of "Friends Tailor and Friends Ladies Tailor". When such being the case, this Court is dis-inclined to interfere with impugned orders. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed and the impugned fair and decreetal orders dated 26.02.2014 and made in E.A. Nos. 33 & 34 of 2014 in E.A. No. 108 of 2013 in E.P. No. 145 of 2008 in O.S. No. 219 of 1986, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur, are confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.