The revision petitioner, lacking party status in the original suit, cannot be compelled to assist in executing a delivery warrant due to inadequate resources and jurisdictional misuse by the executing Court.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.R.Selvakumar, learned counsel for the contesting 1^st respondent.

3.The revision petitioner challenges the order of the executing Court in E.A.No.9 of 2024, directing the Greater Chennai Corporation to provide necessary help to the Bailiff to execute the warrant.

4.Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the revision petitioner would first and foremost contend that the revision petitioner was not a party to the suit proceedings or even to the decree in O.S.No.587 of 1970, leave alone the execution proceedings. It is the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the revision petitioner had no role to even assist the Bailiff in the execution of the delivery warrant and in such circumstances, the executing Court ought to have recalled the warrant in E.A.No.6 of 2019. He also brought to my notice that the executing Court, even in the order dated 06.10.2025, had directed the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation to be present in Court on 18.11.2025, with specific observation that his absence would be taken as contempt of Court proceedings. However, the said order dated 06.10.2025 was stayed by me, at the time when the above revision was moved.

5.Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General would also invite my attention to the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Cont.P.No.1662 of 2022, where the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the respondent/decree holder cannot seek eviction of its private property through the Commissioner of Greater Chennai Corporation and taking note of the fact that several encroachers were in occupation of the decreetal property for the past several years, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that the respondent had to initiate appropriate action in the manner known to law. The learned Additional Advocate General would therefore state that the executing Court ought not to have resorted to issuing directions to the revision petitioner to provide help to the Bailiff, to execute the warrant.

6.Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General would also state that for evicting the encroachers from the private property of the decree holder, adequate provisions are available in the Code of Civil Procedure by seeking police help and there was absolutely no necessity to invoke Order 26 Rule 10-B of CPC, which is only issuance of a commission for performance of a ministerial act. Referring to Order XXVI Rule 10-B of CPC, Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General would state that in the present case, there is no ministerial act involved and therefore, the order of the executing Court was clearly perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

7.Per contra, Mr.R.Selvakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would firstly contend that the decree holder is a Mutt, which comes under the control of the Andhra Pradesh Religious Charitable and Endowments Act and therefore, the very argument of the petitioner that the property is the private property is fallacious. He would further state that the executing Court has not taken any harsh or coercive steps against the revision petitioner, but has only directed the revision petitioner to render assistance.

8.It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the suit property, which admittedly belongs to the respondent/decree holder, has been laid out and even roads have bee