BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Dated this the 3rd day of May 2018
M.P. No. 13 / 2018 in E.P. No. 1 / 2008 in D. No. 12 / 2003,
M.P. No. 14 / 2018 in E.P. No. 2 / 2008 in D. No. 11 / 2003,
M.P. No. 15 / 2018 in E.P. No. 3 / 2008 in D. No. 4 / 2005,
M.P. No. 16 / 2018 in E.P. No. 4 / 2008 in D. No. 6 / 2005,
M.P. No. 17 / 2018 in E.P. No. / 2008 in D. No. 8 / 2005,
M.P. No. 18 / 2018 in E.P. No. 6 / 2008 in D. No. 7 / 2005,
M.P. No. 19 / 2018 in E.P. No. 7 / 2008 in D. No. 5 / 2005,
M.P. No. 20 / 2018 in E.P. No. 8 / 2008 in D. No. 10 / 2005,
M.P. No. 21 / 2018 in E.P. No. 9 / 2008 in D. No. 1 / 2005,
M.P. No. 22 / 2018 in E.P. No. 10/ 2008 in D. No. 15 / 2005,
M.P. No. 23 / 2018 in E.P. No. 11/ 2008 in D. No. 3 / 2005,
M.P. No. 24 / 2018 in E.P. No. 12/ 2008 in D. No. 5 / 2005,
D. Sivaram Alva
… Petitioner / OP1
Vs
1. D. Sankaralingam
… Respondent / Complainant
2. H. Dhritin Tyagi
… Respondent / OP2.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE Thiru K. VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
Thiru Prakash Adiapadam, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru L. Sathish, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Thiru S. Vimal, Advocate for Respondent No.2
COMMON ORDER
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
These applications have been filed on behalf of the Judgment Debtor seeking to pass an order to implead the General Manager, State Bank of India, Thattanchavadi Branch, Pondicherry.
The first respondent in this application, namely, the complainant after getting an orders in the complaints filed by them, filed execution petitions for executing the order. They also filed Execution Applications seeking certain reliefs. The matter was pending for quite a long time without counter being filed in the Execution Petitions. Later, counter has been filed and the Counsel appearing for the Decree Holder has put forth his arguments. Time has been granted on number of occasions for the arguments on the side of the Judgment Debtor. Thereafter, change of vakalat has been filed and the matter was posted for orders in the E.As as well as E.Ps. Later, the present application has been filed.
In the affidavit in support of the application, it is stated that the State Bank of India is a necessary party in the Execution proceedings since possession has been taken by the bank and without them, there cannot be any order in the execution petition. The said application has been filed in the last minute when the matter was posted for orders in the Execution Petitions. The Counsel appearing for the Decree Holder has objected to the said application on the following grounds:
a) The case is listed today for orders and hence, the present petition is not maintainable without a reopen petition.
b) The proposed party was not party to main C.C. Hence, he cannot be impleaded in E.P.
c) The decree holder is the dominus litus and only he can decide the party to litigation.
d) Only proper and necessary party can be impleaded. The Proposed Party is neither proper nor necessary party to this proceedings.
Both the Counsels put forth their arguments of their respective cases. We have gone through the affidavit in support of the application and the objections of the decree holder. The facts narrated above will clearly prove that the present application is a route to get an adjournment and to delay the proceedings in the execution petition and also with a view to prolong the issue without an order adverse to them. As narrated above, the execution petition has been filed in the year 2008 and now we are in the year 2018. About the delay in disposal of the matter, it is always said "the father will file a case, the son will get a decree and the grand sons or the grand daughters will enjoy the fruits of the decree". The present case is a classic example for the same. The complaint was filed in the year 2005 and after getting an order in their favour, the complainants have laid the execution petition in the year 2008 and still the Judgment Debtor wants this State Commission to prolong the matter. On one pretext or other, the Judgment Debtor is prolonging the matter. We cannot come to the aid of such person by adjourning the matter endlessly.
Therefore, we are of the view that the present applications is devoid of merits. Further, it is for the decree holder to implead the necessary parties not only in the complaint filed by them, but also in the execution petition. Even assuming the State Bank of India is a necessary party since it has taken possession of the property in question, it is for the decree holder to work out their remedy and it is not for the judgment debtor to dictate who should be the respondent in the execution petition that has been filed by the complainants.
For all the reasons set out above, we are of the view that the present applications filed by the first Opposite Party, the Judgment Debtor is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2018
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
