An ex parte decree that is cryptic and non-compliant with procedural requirements cannot be executed; necessary amendments to parties and relief sought must be pursued to validate execution.

ORDER :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District, in E.A.No.34 of 2014 in E.P.No.46 of 2009 in O.S.No.470 of 1986, dated 06.10.2025.

2.Heard Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Counsel representing Mr.R.Murali, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P(MD)No. 3025 of 2025, Mr.A.Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P(MD)No.3419 of 2025, Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Thirunavukkarasu learned Counsel for the respondents in C.R.P(MD)No.3025 of 2025 and for the respondents 1 to 3 in C.R.P(MD)No.3419 of 2025.

The facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:-

3.One Appasamy Battar, the father of the respondents 1 to 3, as plaintiff, had originally filed a suit in O.S.No.470 of 1986 before the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, against one Sankarasubramania Battar and one Alagu Thevar, the father of the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P(MD)No.3419 of 2025, seeking for the relief of declaration to declare the suit 1^st schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and for recovery of possession with respect to the suit 2^nd schedule property against the second defendant.

4.During the pendency of the suit, the defendants 1 and 2 died and their legal heirs were brought on record as defendants 3 to 13. Subsequently, the plaintiff also died and the respondents 1 to 3 and their mother, Valliammal were brought on record as plaintiffs 2 to 5.

5.The suit was decreed ex parte on 12.09.2002. Subsequently, the decree holders have filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.46 of 2009. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the defendants/judgment debtors have filed an application in E.A.No.34 of 2014 in E.P.No.46 of 2009 in O.S.No.470 of 1986, under Section 47 of CPC to declare the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.470 of 1986 as null and void and to dismiss the Execution Petition in E.P.No.46 of 2009. The learned Principal District Munsif, Sankarankovil, vide impugned order, dated 06.10.2025, had dismissed the said application on the ground that the grounds raised by the defendants are not in accordance with law. Challenging the same, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

6.Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner in C.R.P(MD)No.3025 of 2025 submitted that originally, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.470 of 1986 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, for declaration and recovery of possession against the second defendant alone and pending suit, after the demise of the plaintiff and the second defendant, their legal heirs were impleaded as parties to the suit, after making necessary amendments. However, after impleading the legal heirs of the second defendant, the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to to amend the prayer with regard to the relief sought as against the second defendant. As the plaintiffs have not amended the prayer seeking relief against the legal heirs of the second defendant, the decree is inexecutable as against the other defendants.

7.It is further submitted that subsequently, the plaintiffs have made an application in I.A.No.462 of 2016 in O.S.No.470 of 1986 to amend the decree by seeking the relief of recovery of possession against all the defendants. However, on 08.06.2018, they withdrew the said application, which itself is evident that the plaintiffs are aware of the fact of inexecutable decree. However, the Court below has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants, which needs interference of this Court.

8.It is further pointed out that the plaintiffs while proceeding with the execution petition, filed an application in E.A.No.3 of 2024 to amend the prayer in the execution petition to include the buildings, which are available in the suit schedule property. However, in the suit, the second defendant has filed a written statement in the year 1987 specifically men