REV.APPL/249/2026 of A.G.Natarajan Vs T.Pechimuthu on 28 September 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.M.Venkadeshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.U.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The revision petition was disposed of by me after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on 24.07.2026. The revision petition has been filed to set aside an order passed by the Executing Court on 19.11.2025. After hearing the counsel for the parties and factoring their respective contentions and objections, I disposed of the revision in the following manner:-

(i) The petitioner shall take separate demand drafts in favour of the plaintiffs, for a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- - Rs.1,65,200/- (divided by three), Rs.1,94,933/- for two persons and Rs.1,94,934/- in favour of one of the petitioners. Photostat copies of the said Demand Drafts shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents within a period of six (6) weeks from today.

(ii) On receipt of the photostat copies, the respondents shall remove the machineries within a week thereafter, and across handing over symbolic/vacant possession of the tenanted premises, the original of the Demand Drafts shall be handed over to the respondents or their Counsel, as it may be agreed upon between the parties.”

2. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner states that certain material facts and circumstances were not brought to the notice of the Court by the erstwhile counsel for the review petitioner and therefore, there is an error in the order at Paragraph No.8 by recording the fact that the claims that were made by the respondents were prior to the date of compromise entered into between the parties.

3. In this regard, it is the submission of Mr.Venkadesan that the claims that have been made by the review petitioner are those that arose subsequent to the compromise that was clinched between the parties in 2014. In this regard, he takes me through the documents filed in support of the review application and contends that after the compromise decree the respondent undertook to clear all statutory dues and also enable the petitioner to enjoy the subject property without any interference from third parties. However, for default in payment of dues to the statutory authorities in respect of fly ash procured by the respondents, there was a claim made by the statutory department against the property and despite the same being brought to the notice of the respondents even in 2016, the respondents took their own sweet time to settle the claim made by the statutory department and settled the claim only in September 2017. It is therefore the contention of Mr.Venkadeshan that in view of the default committed and there being a statutory charge over the suit property, no persons were interested to take the premises on lease from the review petitioner. It is therefore the submission of Mr.Venkadeshan that the review petitioner has been subjected to irreparable loss and hardship on account of the default committed by the respondents subsequent to the compromise reached between the parties. In this regard, he also takes me through the objections filed in this regard before the Executing Court.

4. Per contra, Mr.U.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondents are ready to remove the machineries and despite the time granted by this Court to pay the amounts due and payable to the respondents as indicated and extracted herein above, the review petitioner has not taken a single step towards compliance of the order passed by this Court and today, he makes new claims only to ensure that no amount is paid to the respondents and the Applicants are attempting to have the machineries removed and at the same time also avoid payment of the monies legitimately found due and payable to the respondents. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. After considering the rival submissions advanced on either side, though there is force in submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, that the claims that are now sought to be agitated before this Court are pursuant to the compromise reached in the year 2014, the very fact that the reciprocal terms that have been agreed upon to be performed by the respondents have not been performed giving rise to a cause of action for claiming compensation from the respondents, I do not see how the petitioner can be given an audience at this belated juncture. Admittedly, even according to the review petitioner, the default in respect of fly ash dues was way back in the year 2016, that too, for a period commencing from 2015 onwards. The amount was settled only by the respondents and not by the review petitioner, though in September 2017. Nothing prevented the review petitioner from moving the appropriate Court for recalling the compromise or making an independent counter claim for damages on the ground that the petitioner’s rights have been seriously prejudiced on account of the default committed by the respondent and non-performance of reciprocal obligations cast upon the respondent. Even before this Court when the revision was taken up for final disposal, these contentions were not argued.

7. Therefore, I do not see how the review can be permitted citing an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, I do not see any necessity for the order in the revision being recalled.

8. I do not find any merit in the review application. The Review Application is dismissed.

9. Mr.U.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the respondents brings to my notice that though six weeks time was granted to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) – Rs.1,62,500/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the amount arrived at, after providing for depreciation, by the Advocate Commissioner and the said amount has not been tendered or offered by the review applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are willing to remove the machineries and the Executing Court is not permitting the respondents to remove the machineries since there is no specific direction in this regard. There was no specific direction only on the hope that the parties would comply with the terms of the order passed on 24.07.2026 in their presence. However, today, the said order has admittedly not been complied with and a review has also been attempted to be made which has been dismissed herein above.

10. In the light of the above, liberty is granted to the respondents to remove the machineries in Schedule “B”, at their cost, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the petitioner is not coming forward to pay the sum of Rs.5,87,500/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) (i.e., Rs.7,50,000/- - Rs.1,62,500/-) it shall be open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in a manner known to law.

11. With the above observations, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking order sr

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr REV.APPL No. 249 of 2026 28.09.2026