CRP No. 3783 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-04-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR CRP No. 3783 of 2018 and CMP No.21090 of 2018 1. K.L.Mahadevan Both Are Residing At No.1/62-a, M.G.Road, Ganesh Bhavan Hotel, Kolamangalam, Denkanikotta, Krishnagiri Dist. 2.K.L.Somasekar Both Are Residing At No.1/62-a, M.G.Road, Ganesh Bhavan Hotel, Kolamangalam, Denkanikotta, Krishnagiri Dist. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. S.M.Ramesh S/o Muni Krishna Chetty All Are Res.At.Kelamangalam Town, Denkanikotta Tk, Nw Krishnagiri Dist. 2.S.M.Krishnamoorthy S/o Muni Krishna Chetty All Are Res.At.Kelamangalam Town, Denkanikotta Tk, Nw Krishnagiri Dist. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 3.S.M.Vishwanathaguptta S/o Muni Krishna Chetty All Are Res.At.Kelamangalam Town, Denkanikotta Tk, Nw Krishnagiri Dist. 4.S.M.Mohan S/o Muni Krishna Chetty All Are Res.At.Kelamangalam Town, Denkanikotta Tk, Nw Krishnagiri Dist. Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19/07/2018 passed in REA No.28/2017 in REP No.15/2014 in OS No.237/1996 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta, Krishnagiri District. For Petitioner(s): Uma Vidyapathi-ms/1252/2005 For M/s.Geeta Ramaseshan For Respondent(s): Mr.Ashwin Prasad For M/s.V.Srimathi for R1 to R3 R4 - Dismissed Vide C/o. Dt: 10.02.2023 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.07.2018 passed in REA No.28 of 2017 in REP No.15 of 2014 in OS No.237 of 1996 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta, Krishnagiri District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 2. These revision petitioners are the defendants in the suit in OS.No.237 of 1996. The defendants are tenants, and the plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession before the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta, Krishnagiri District, which was dismissed on 30.03.2001. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.No.30 of 2002 before the Appellate Court, which was also dismissed on 10.11.2003. Challenging the said judgement and decree, the plaintiffs filed a second appeal before this Court in S.A.No.535 of 2005, which came to be allowed, directing the defendants to vacate the premises. Consequently, an execution petition was filed by the plaintiffs /decree holders in R.E.P.No.15 of 2014, against which R.E.A.No.28 of 2017 was filed by the defendants/judgment debtors before the Court below, which came to be dismissed on 19.07.2018. Challenging the decreetal order, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. The trial Court while dismissing the R.E.A.No.28 of 2017 dated 19.07.2018, had observed as follows: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 “8/ ,Ujug;g[ thj';fs;. kD. vjpUiu kw;Wk; tHf;fhtz';fis ghprPypj;jjpy;. ,e;j m/t/vz;?237-96?y; 30/03/2001?k; njjpapy; ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mry; tHf;fhdJ js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;L ,e;j vjph;kDjhuh;fs;-jPh;g;ghiz bgw;wth;fs; khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; 2?k; nky; KiwaPl;L vz;/535-2005?ia jhf;fy; bra;J 20/08/2013?k; njjpapy; fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPh;g;g[ kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghiz uj;J bra;ag;gl;L jhththdJ mDkjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk;. nkw;go khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;ghizapy; 3 khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; gpujpthjpfs;. thjpfs; trk; RthjPdj;ij xg;gilf;f ntz;Lbkdt[k; nkYk; U:/7500-?ia gpujpthjpfs;. thjpfSf;F brYj;j ntz;Lbkd cj;jutpl;L jPh;g;g[ kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghizahdJ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ bjhpa tUfpwJ/ nkw;go jPh;g;g[ kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghizapd; mog;gilapy; ,e;j epiwntw;Wif kDthdJ jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ epiwntw;Wif kDtpy; ,Ujug;g[ rhl;rpa';fs; Kof;fg;gl;L thJiuf;fhf fhy mtfhrk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;s epiyapy; brhj;jpd; m';f mikg;g[fis rh;ntah; cjtpa[ld; mse;J mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;a ,e;j kDthdJ jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ tHf;fhtz';fis ghprPypj;jjpy;. 2?k; nky; KiwaPl;L tHf;F vz;/535-05?y; jPh;g;gpy; m/t/vz;?237-96 tHf;fpy; thjpfs; brhj;ij fpuak; bgw;Ws;sJ bjhpa tUfpwJ vd;Wk; mjd; mog;gilapy; brhj;J mry; tHf;fpy; thjpfSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;Wk; nkw;go tHf;fpy; vjph; tHf;Fiuapy; brhy;yg;gl;Ls;sJ nghy gpujpthjpfs; brhj;jpid bfyk';fyj;ij nrh;e;j Kfk;kJ fyPy; rhfpg; vd;gthplkpUe;J bgw;W 1?k; gpujpthjp bgaUf;F gl;lh tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ vdf; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s tptu';fs; epU:gpf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; vdnt brhj;jpd; RthjPdkhdJ thjpfs; trk; xg;gilf;f ntz;Lbkd jPh;g;gspf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ bjhpa tUfpwJ/ nkw;go khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w Kd; jPh;g;gpnyna m/t/vz;/435-93?y; ,e;j kDtpd; kDjhuh; jhf;fy; bga;j gpuhjpnyna fPH;f;fz;l tptukhdJ Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd tpthjpf;fg;gl;ls;sJ/ “The plaintiff were tenants of the suit properties. The contract of tenancy was entitled into with one Rajamannar, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 brother of the 1 st defendant when the latter was away. Originally the plaintiffs were paying a rent of Rs.150/- p.m. When the 1 st defendant returned to demanded more and the rent was paid at Rs.200/- p.m. to the 1 st defendant for the shop and the resident. The contract of tenancy was oral” vdnt. nkw;fz;l khz;g[kpF brd;id cah;ePjpkd;w Kd; jPh;g;ig ghprPypj;jjpy;. m/t/vz;/435-93?y; ,e;j kDjhuh;fs; brhj;jpy; thlifjhuh;fshf ,Ue;J tUtJ xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;ls;sJ/ vdnt. ,e;j kDjhuh;fs; brhj;jpy; thlifjhuh;fshf cs;s epiyapYk; nkw;go 2?k; nky; KiwaPl;L tHf;F vz;/535-05?y; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghizahdJ uj;J bra;ag;glhj epiyapYk; cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;ng ,WjpahdJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/ vdnt. cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;gpw;F vjpuhf kDjhuh;fs; brhj;jpd; mst[fs; Fwpj;J vt;tpj Ml;nrgiza[k; bra;tjw;F Kfhe;jpuk; ,y;iy vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/ nkYk;. nkw;go cah;ePjpkd;w Kd; jPh;g;gpnyna m/t/vz;/237-96?y; thjpfs; brhj;jpw;F chpikahsh;fs; vdj; jPh;t[ fhzg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt. brhj;jpd; RthjPdj;ij kDjhuh;fs;. Vjph;kDjhuh;fs; trk; xg;gilf;f flikg;gl;Ls;sjhf ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/ vjph;kDjhuh;fs; jug;g[ fw;wwpe;j tHf;fwp"hpd; thjj;jpd; nghJ Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ nghy; tHf;fpd; tprhuizia fhyjhkjg;gLj;Jtjw;fhfnt bjhlh;e;J ,t;tifapyhd kDf;fs; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vdf; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ cah;ePjpkd;w jPh;g;gpd; mog;gilapy; nky;KiwaPL vJt[k; jhf;fy; bra;ag;glhjjhy; ,e;j kDjhuh;fs; kDtpid jhf;fy; bra;tjw;F mth;fSf;F nghJkhd Kfhe;jpuk; ,y;iy vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/ vdnt. ,k;kDthdJ js;Sgo bra;ag;glyhk; vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ/ epiwntw;Wif kDthdJ epYitapy; cs;sgoahy; mtuth;fs; bryt[j; bjhiffis mtuth;fns Vw;Wf; bfhs;s cj;jutplg;glyhk; vd ,e;ePjpkd;Wk; Kot[ bra;fpd;wJ/ ” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The Trial Court rejected the application of the defendants, observing that the second appeal, arising out of the suit, was decided in favour of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to vacate the premises. It appears that the present Civil Revision Petition is an attempt to protract the proceedings. 6. In view of the disposal of the suit and the second appeal, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 17-04-2025 Anu Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 To 1.The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Denkanikotta, Krishnagiri District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 3783 of 2018 N.SENTHILKUMAR.J, Anu CRP No. 3783 of 2018 and CMP No.21090 of 2018 17.04.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis