The executing Court must allow parties the opportunity to present their case and cannot proceed with execution if misleading information affects judicial integrity.

ORDER :

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor in E.A.No.06 of 2025 in E.P.No.77 of 2025 in O.S.No.54 of 2010, dated 27.11.2025 and the consequential order passed in E.P.No.77 of 2025, dated 27.11.2025.

2.Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.H.Arumugam, learned Counsel for the first respondent and Ms.Shiyamala, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

3.The first respondent, as plaintiff, has originally filed a suit in O.S.No. 54 of 2010 before the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor, against the petitioners and the second respondent herein, for the relief of declaration and for recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal along with an application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 before the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, to condone the delay of 5 days in filing the appeal and in that application, notice was ordered. In the meanwhile, the first respondent/plaintiff/decree holder has filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.77 of 2025 before the Subordinate Court, Valliyoor. On 25.09.2025, the Executing Court has passed an order of delivery and thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed an application in E.A.No.6 of 2025 in E.P.No.77 of 2025 to stay the execution proceedings. The learned Subordinate Judge, Valliyoor, vide impugned order, dated 27.11.2025, had dismissed the said application by holding that since delivery was effected and possession was handed over the decree holder, the present petition has become superfluous and infructuous. and has also terminated the Execution Petition. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein as well as the second second respondent are the defendants in the suit initiated by the first respondent in O.S.No.54 of 2010. The said suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession. He submitted that since the said suit was decreed, the petitioners herein have filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.(unnumbered) of 2025 and in that application, notice was also ordered to the first respondent. However, after filing of the appeal along with an application for delay condonation, the first respondent herein has filed an execution petition in E.P.No.77 of 2025 stating that no appeal has been filed by the defendants. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that very numbering of the execution petition itself is an abuse of process of law.

5.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Executing Court ought to have refrained from ordering delivery of possession, until the disposal of the delay condonation application, since already notice was served on the first respondent. He also submitted that the Executing Court, on the very same day of filing of the Execution Petition, without even ordering notice to the judgment debtors, has passed an order of delivery, which is per se illegal and non est in the eye of law. He also submitted that the Executing Court has failed to grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forward their case and without ordering notice to the judgment debtors, the Executing Court has mechanically ordered the execution of the decree for recovery of possession.

6.It is his further contention th