Excerpt
A Civil Revision Petition was filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the fair and decretal passed by the Executing Court.
Facts of the Case
A CRP was filed against the fair and decretal order dated 04.01.2014 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
Arguments
There was no representation for the Petitioners.
The Respondents submitted that even the RCOP was pending, the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff was decreed. In the first appeal filed before the District Court, a compromise Decree was passed based on the undertaking given by the revision Petitioner/Defendant that he would vacate the premises within one year.
Thereafter, the execution petition was filed, and executing proceedings were taken up for executing the decree. The revision petitioner had not vacated the premises within the said period of one year. The Revision Petitioner filed a claim petition and was dismissed by the Executing Court.
Court’s Observation
The Court observed that having allowed the suit to be decree on a compromise, the revision Petitioner/Defendant was not entitled to file a claim petition and claim another decree for the same subject matter.
The Court had also observed that the executing court rightly appreciated the matter in issue and dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable. As submitted by the Respondents, that the possession of the property was also taken on 25.03.2014 through court, and hence, nothing survived for further adjudication.
Court’s Decision
The Court had held that there was no error in the order of the Executing Court warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition was thus dismissed.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE JUDGMENT.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
