C.R.P.No.3849 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.10.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.No.3849 of 2023

Chinnaponnu

...

Petitioner

-Vs-

1. Raniammal

2. R.Balakrishnan

... Respondents

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Sec.115 of Civil Procedure

Code, praying to set aside the dismissal order dated 20.10.2022 passed by

the Hon'ble Sub-Judge at Tiruttani in E.A.No. 1 of 2021 in unnumbered

E.P.No. ......of 2018.

For Petitioner

: Mr.L.Ramu

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in

unnumbered E.P.No. ......of 2018 by the learned Sub-Judge, Tiruttani, the

Revision Petitioner/Petitioner preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Since the relief is claimed challenging the order passed by the

1/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3849 of 2023

trial judge, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

3. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioner filed a suit in

O.S.No. 90 of 2005 against the respondents/defendants for the relief of

specific performance. The defendants also contested the suit and a decree

was granted in her favour. Thereafter, to execute the sale deed, she

initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.10 of 2011, as the defendants

failed to do the same, the sale deed was executed through court on

02.08.2017. Thereafter, she filed an Execution Petition for delivery of

possession on 28.10.2018, but the same was returned by the executing

court for want of certain particulars. In the meanwhile, the revision

petitioner handed over the petition to her counsel, but he has not properly

complied the returns, however, due to covid-9 pandemic, the said

Execution Petition was not represented. So, there was a delay of 841 days

arose in representing the said Execution Petition. Hence, to condone the

said delay, she filed an application E.A.No.1 of 2021, in which notice was

given to the respondents. They have also appeared and submitted their

objections. On considering both side submissions, the executing court

dismissed the application stating that the suit was decreed in the year of

2018 and the earlier Execution Petition was filed and the sale deed was

2/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3849 of 2023

executed through court of law, thereby the prayer in the said execution

petition was terminated, as such, the present Execution Petition is not

maintainable. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition

has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner would submit that the

earlier Execution Petition filed by her for execution of sale deed, as the

defendants failed, through court of law the sale deed was executed.

Therefore, the said E.P. was terminated, since because the prayer in the

said petition only to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, he filed the present

E.P. for delivery of possession. Instead of taking the petition on file, the

trial judge erroneously dismissed the same stating that the earlier E.P. was

terminated. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings of the trial judge.

5. On perusal of records, it reveals that the sale deed was executed

in favour of Revision Petitioner through court of law in the earlier

Execution Petition on 02.08.2017 and the prayer in that E.P. is only to

execute the sale deed, thereby after execution of sale deed, the said

Execution Petition was terminated. Now, for getting delivery of the

property, the revision petitioner/decree holder filed the present Execution

Petition, but the executing court erroneously dismissed the application as

3/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3849 of 2023

it is not maintainable, which shows his non-application of judicious mind.

Therefore, the findings o