IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 08.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP.No.3686 of 2025

& CMP.No.19765 of 2025

The State of Tamil Nadu,

Represented by the District Collector,

Tiruvannamalai,

Tiruvannamalai District. ... Petitioner

Vs.

Kannada Veerasaiva Saineegar Sangam,

Arni,

Represented by its Secretary. ... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to strike off the execution proceedings as against this petitioner in E.P.No.69 of 2011 in O.S.No.63 of 1973 on the file of the Subordinate

Court, Tiruvannamalai.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha

Special Government Pleader

For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

for Mrs.V.Srimathi

ORDER

The decree holder is the judgment debtor, seeking to strike off E.P.No.69 of 2011 which has been filed to execute the decree in O.S.No.63 of 1973 as barred by the law of limitation.

2.I have heard Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the respondent/decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 1973, for the relief of declaration and delivery of possession. The trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court (A.S.No.1063 of 1979), dismissed the suit concurrently. However, the further appeal in L.P.A.No.139 of 1988 came to be allowed by this Court on 29.10.1997, granting a decree, directing the revision petitioner to assign the third item of suit property in Survey No.533, of an extent of 4 acres and 44 cents to the plaintiff/respondent within a period of four months from the date of application being made by the plaintiff. In all other respects, the suit came to be dismissed, confirming the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court. The learned Additional Advocate General would therefore state that the relief granted in LPA was only a mandatory injunction decree which has to be necessarily executed within a period of three years. He would rely on Article 135 of the Limitation Act in this regard.

4.Referring to the dates, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that EP.No.25 of 1999 was filed on 09.12.1998 and on 21.11.1999, the revision petitioner had been set ex-parte. However, on 03.04.2003, the EP came to be dismissed for default. Fresh EP was filed in E.P.No.4 of 2005 on 28.09.2004. The execution petition was dismissed as not pressed on 01.03.2005. In the interregnum period, W.P.No.21756 of 2000 came to be allowed at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff on 20.11.2004. The same was challenged in W.A.No.64 of 2005 and the Division Bench, by its judgment dated 11.09.2007, set aside the order passed in writ appeal and directed the respondent to workout its remedy in an appropriate forum. A review petition in Rev.No.32 of 2009 came to be filed and in the said review, by order dated 29.07.2009, the Division Bench held that as far as the question of limitation, the Bench was not expressing any opinion and it would be open to the respondent to bring it to the notice of the competent Court that they were pursuing the remedy before the writ court which resulted in writ appeal proceedings as well. It is therefore the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the subsequent EP filed on 27.08.2009 in E.P.No.69 of 2011 with a direction to assign the 4 acres and 44 cents as originally directed in LPA.No.139 of 1988 on

29.10.1997 is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.

5.Per contra, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the earlier execution petitions were not decided on merits, but E.P.No.25 of 1999 came to be dismissed for default alone on 03.04.2003 and the second EP.No.4 of 2005 came to be not p