SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
The Director, SKIT National of Skill Development Entrepreneurship – Appellant
Versus
1.V.Ezhilkarasu – Respondent
CRP.No.1613 of 2025 and CMP.No.9326 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASG for Mr.S.Chandrasekaran
For the Respondents:Mr.D.Anand Raja for R1 to R5, Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate for R6 & R7

The executing court must verify evidence of any violation before enforcing an ex parte injunction decree.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 115 - Revision petition against the order for removal of a compound wall blocking public access - Executing court's order questioned on grounds of lack of evidence regarding violation of the permanent injunction decree - Suit originally filed by the plaintiff was decreed ex parte, with concerns raised about the procedures followed by the executing court. (Paras 1, 4, 7)

(B) Execution of Injunction Decree - Execution proceedings need proper verification to confirm whether the violation occurred post-decree, highlighting the significance of evidentiary support. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against construction blocking public pathways on property claimed to belong to the Central Government. An ex parte decree was granted on 09.01.2020, followed by an execution petition filed alleging violation of the injunction order.

Findings of Court:
Execution cannot proceed without verifying the timeline of the alleged construction against the permanent injunction decree.

Issues: The court addressed whether the executing court appropriately verified the status of the compound wall relative to the injunction decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The executing court failed to confirm if the compound wall was constructed after the injunction, emphasizing that a mandatory injunction must be substantiated with concrete evidence.

Result: Revision petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. ex parte decree for permanent injunction regarding pathway access. (Para 2)
2. enforcement of injunction must rely on verified evidence. (Para 4)

For petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASG for Mr.S.Chandrasekaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Anand Raja for R1 to R5 Mr.D.Gopal, Government Advocate for R6 & R7 O R D E R The order in and by which the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai issued direction warrant as against the judgment debtors to remove compound wall blocking the pathway for access of general public to the place where ceremony is conduced in the land in S.Nos.111 & 112 in Block No.5, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032 is put in challenge before this Court by filing the present revision petition.

2. The suit has been originally filed as against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up construction or compound wall blocking the pathway and access to general public. The plaint indicates that the suit property belongs to the Corporation of Chennai which has been used as pathway and also the place has been used to conduct ceremony by the people residing in the vicinity. The suit was decreed exparte on 09.01.2020. It is relevant to note that the relief of permanent injunction is sought in the suit, whereas, now, execution has been levied as if there was violation of the decree of the permanent injunction and sought for demolishing the compound wall. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 05.03.2025 had issued direction warrant as against the judgment debtors to remove compound wall blocking the pathway for access of general public.

Challenging the said order, this revision has been filed.

3. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.

4. It is relevant to note that though the suit was decreed exparte, admittedly, the property belongs to the Central Government, this aspect is not disputed. The document relied upon by the plaintiff is only with regard to some representation given by the second plaintiff and reply obtained through RTI. Any how, the suit has been decreed exparte. The decree and judgment dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Trial Court in view of this Court does not comply with the requirements as contemplated under Order XX Rules 4 & 5 of Code of Civil Procedure . Be that as it may, even assuming that the exparte decree is also binding on the parties, the exparte decree relates to permanent injunction, whereas, now, the execution petition has been levied to demolish the construction and the Executing Court, too, has ordered for demolition of the compound wall.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top