w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Lalitha Loganathan v/s Pappi Chetty Ragaviah Chetty Charities rep. by its Trustees & Others

    C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1816 of 2006 & 1817 of 2006
    Decided On, 12 January 2007
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    For the Petitioner: N.K. Anantha Ramakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: T. Rajamohan, Advocate.

Judgment Text
(Prayer: Revision filed against the order dated 30.10.2006 passed in E.A.Nos.3642, 3641/2006 in E.P.No.384/2006 on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.)

These revisions are directed against the orders made in E.A.Nos.3642, 3641/2006 in E.P.No.384/2006, on the file of the X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, dismissing the stay petition and the application to reopen. Judgment-Debtor is the Revision Petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-

Respondents/Plaintiffs is a Public Charitable Trust and the Revision Petitioner is a Tenant in respect of a shop in the suit premises. The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed O.S.No.5769/1995, on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for ejecting the Petitioner from the suit premises. The Petitioner entered appearance and filed the Written Statement and contested the suit. Thereafter, she did not appear and hence exparte Decree was passed on 20.02.2004.

2.1. To set aside the exparte Decree, the Revision Petitioner has filed I.A.No.19553/2005. Again that application was dismissed for Petitioner's non-appearance on 19.01.2006.

2.2. The Petitioner sought for stay of the Execution proceedings, in view of the pendency of the application to set aside the exparte Decree and also the application for restoration of I.A.No.19553/2005. The Respondents resisted the applications by filing elaborate counter statement. The Executing Court has dismissed both the applications by the Order dated 30.10.2006, which are challenged in these revisions.

3. The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed E.P.No.384/2006 to reopen the Execution Petition, for further arguments and also to stay the execution proceedings. In view of the pendency of the applications for setting aside the exparte Decree on the original side, the Petitioner had also taken steps by filing I.A.Nos.13702 to 13704/2006 to restore I.A.No.19553/2005 along with the application to condone the delay of 154 days. Since in the V Assistant City Civil Court there is no Presiding Officer, the said applications could not be taken up and are pending.

4. Heard both. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that the Revision Petitioner is prepared to get along with the suit, provided her application in I.A.No.19553/2005 is restored. It is further stated that since the Office of the V Assistant City Civil Judge is vacant, the applications I.A.Nos.13702 to 13704/2006 could not be taken up and seeks appropriate directions. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/ Plaintiffs has raised strong objection contending that the suit is of the year 1995 and the Petitioner has no inclination to get along with the matter.

5. In consideration of the submissions, it would be appropriate to issue directions to the Presiding Officer in-charge of the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai to take up the applications I.A.Nos

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
.13702 to 13704/2006 and dispose of the same in accordance with law by the end of February 2007. In the mean time, further proceedings in E.P.No.384/2006 is stayed till the disposal of the I.A.Nos.13702 to 13704/2006. 6. The Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 are closed. No costs.