AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in R.E.P. No. 91 of 2008 in O.S. No. 900 of 1999 on
the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Salem wherein and whereby the Court below has granted 30 days time to rectify the mistake committed
by the petitioners herein in cancelling the ''D'' Card Patta dated 20.12.1999 issued in favour of the respondent herein on 29.07.1999. Heard the
learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent.
In this case, it is admitted by both parties that a ''D'' Card patta was issued in favour of the respondent herein in respect of a property in S. No.
77/14 in Mallamoopampatti Village, Salem Taluk to an extent of 0.23.0 Hectares through proceedings dated 29.07.1999. However, the said
patta, based on a complaint given by some third parties, was stayed by the District Collector, Salem, who is the first petitioner herein through his
proceedings dated 20.12.1999. Thereafter, the respondent filed O.S. No. 900 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Salem seeking
for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the said suit was partly decreed by granting a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants therein from in any way cancelling the assignment of ''D'' Card Patta without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff / respondent herein.
The said suit came to be decreed on 20.12.2002 and the appeal preferred against the same in A.S. No. 132 of 2003 on the file of Fast Track
Court No. I, Salem was also dismissed on 07.08.2004.
It is seen that the decree confirmed by the first appellate Court has thus become final and conclusive between the parties and is still in force as
no further appeal said to have been filed before this Court. Thereafter, the respondent herein, as the decree holder, filed R.E.P. No. 91 of 2008
under Order XLI Rule 28 of the CPC for passing an order against the petitioners herein for their disobedience of the decree of injunction granted
by not receiving the land tax tendered by Money Order for the property concerned and for committing them to prison for such willful
disobedience.
The said application was contested by the petitioners herein by filing a counter. It is their case that only stay of the patta was granted by the
District Collector on 20.12.2009 and it was not cancelled as contended by the respondent herein. As no final order is passed by the petitioners
herein, there is no question of complaining of any disobedience of the decree granted by the Court.
The Court below, after considering the rival pleadings and the submissions of the respective parties, found that the ''D'' Card Patta was in fact
cancelled and before cancelling such patta, no opportunity was given to the respondent herein. Based on the said finding, the Court below has
passed the order by granting an opportunity to the petitioners to rectify the mistake committed by them, since such cancellation goes against the
decree granted by the trial Court. The Court also found that there is no necessity for punishing the respondents/petitioners herein without giving
them an opportunity to rectify the mistake. Therefore, it has granted 30 days time for rectifying the mistake and intimate the same to the Court
below. The said order is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition.
The learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is only a suspension and not cancellation of the patta and
therefore, the respondent cannot have any grievance.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that when there is a decree and the same has become final and
conclusive and binding on the parties, the petitioners cannot be permitted to say that they have only suspended and not cancelled the patta.
Whether it is suspension of the patta or cancellation of the same, the petitioners are bound by the decree granted by the Civil Court in O.S. No.
900 of 1999 confirmed in A.S. No. 132 of 2005 and cannot cancel the patta without giving due opportunity to the respondent herein. Therefore, if
any cancellation or suspension was made, it is for them to rectify it and thereafter proceed against the respondent after giving him due opportunity
of hearing. Instead of doing so, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that they have not committed any mistake. In fact, the Court below
has given them opportunity to correct the mistake. When such order is passed by granting the petitioners 30 days time to rectify the mistake, I find
no irregularity or infirmity in the said order and consequently, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition
is dismissed and the petitioners are given further time of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to comply with the order passed
by the Court below. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.