CRP.No.3199 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.08.2023

CORAM

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

CRP.No.3199 of 2018

Duraisamy Udaiyar (Died)

1. Muniyandi

2. Gunabushanam (Died) vide Separate Sheet order

3. Baby

4. Natarajan

5. Sekar

6. Srinivasan

7. Parthasarathy (Died)vide Separate Sheet order

8. Thangaraj

9. Devaraj

10. Amudha

11. Babu

12. Loganayaki

13. T.Praveenkumar

14. T.Banupriya

Petitioners 12 to 14 brought on record as LRs of the

deceased P-8 viz Thangaraj vide Court order dated

08.08.2022 made in CMP.No.14109 of 2021 in CRP.No.3199

of 2018

15. P.Santhi

16. P.Prabhakaran

17. P.Sivakumar

Petitioners 15 to 17 brought on record as LRs of the

deceased P-7 viz Parthasarathy vide court order dated

08.08.2022 made in CMP.No.14132 of 2021 in

1/11

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

CRP.No.3199 of 2018

CRP.No.3199 of 2018.

18. M.Kousalya

19. D.Gouthawari

20. D.Muruganantham

21. B.Priya ...Petitioners

Petitioners 18 to 21 brought on record as LRs of the

deceased P-2 viz .Gunabushanam vide court order dated

08.08.2022 made in CMP.No.9164 of 2022 in CRP.No.3199

of 2018.

Vs.

Neelakanda Naicker (died)

1. Janaka

2. Sakthivel

3. Gokul

4. Gomathy ..Respondents

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of

C.P.C., praying to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 17.04.2018

passed by the learned District Munsif Judge at Madurantakkam, dismissing

E.P.Sr.No.2472 of 2016 in O.S.No.618 of 1971, and allow E.P.Sr.No.2472

of 2016by allowing the CRP.

For petitioners : Mr.N.Nagusah

For Respondent : Mr.Venkatesh Mohanraj

ORDER

Challenging the order passed in EP.SR.No.2472 of 2016 in

O.S.No.618 of 1971 on the file of the District Munsif Court,

2/11

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

CRP.No.3199 of 2018

Madurantakkam, dated 17.04.2018, the Petitioners/Decree-holders have

preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The petitioners herein are the decree holders pertaining to the

decree passed in O.S.No.618 of 1971 dated 24.10.1973 and they have filed

an Execution petition before the trial Court to execute the decree in respect

of the delivery possession of the suit property from the respondents

herein/Judgment debtors.

3. Before the trial Court takes the case on file, Executing Court has

held that, after lapse of 41 years, the petitioners herein had filed this petition

for execution of delivery of possession and as such it is barred by limitation.

Furthermore, the present petitioners are not a party to the original suit

proceedings and description also is not correct, besides, the dismissal of the

another suit in O.S.No.144 of 1977 is not at all connected with the present

suit proceedings, execution petition was rejected as it was barred by

limitation. Challenging the said findings, the decree holders have preferred

this civil revision petition.

3/11

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

CRP.No.3199 of 2018

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the

Executing Court had erred in dismissing the EP in SR stage holding that it

is barred by law of limitation, without even properly perusing the Court

records, which would reveal that EP was filed within the limitation period

of 12 years. Further, he would submit that the Executing Court erred in

holding that the cause title in the EP as well as the decree in A.S.No.8 of

1974 do not tally with