@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
G. Rajasuria, J.@mdashAnimadverting upon the order dated 11.01.2010 passed in E.P. No. 1401 of 2009 in A.R.C. No. 1237 of 2008 by the IX Asst. Judge City Civil Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Despite printing the name of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner earlier on several occasions, there was no representation. Even though the matter has been listed under the ''Dismissal'' caption, yet there is no response. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent who would submit that absolutely there is no merit in this revision.
3. The germane facts for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The respondent herein obtained an award in ARC No. 1237 of 2008 from the Chit Registrar concerned as against the revision petitioner herein and by way of executing the said Award, E.P. No. 1401 of 2009 was filed for the purpose of attaching the immovable property and selling in the process of recovering the award amount. The revision petitioner herein, entered appearance and filed counter as though the award passed was an ex parte one and that owing to his financial crunch, he could not discharge the debt fully even though he paid partly. However, the lower Court ultimately ordered attachment of the immovable property.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed on the main ground that the lower Court was not justified in ordering attachment of his immovable property.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court?
6. The learned Counsel for the respondent inviting the attention of this Court to the typed set of papers available on record, would submit that the lower Court in the process of recovering the award amount correctly ordered attachment and the lower Court also passed a reasoned order after considering the counter filed by the revision petitioner herein. The lower court in its order considered the contentions of the revision petitioner and pointed out that those all are untenable. In fact, the Executing court also clearly pointed out that after having admitted his liability the revision petitioner herein committed default in payment of instalments and simply he had chosen to stall the EP proceedings. As such I could see no merit in this revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
