##PAGE1##

2026:MHC:408

C.R.P.(NPD).No.5629 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 12.01.2026 Pronounced on: 30.01.2026

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

C.R.P.(NPD).No.5629 of 2025

S.K.Krishnan (Deceased).

1. K.Saroja,

2. Ravi Varma,

3. K.Parthiban,

4. Vinayagam,

5. Jothilakshmi,

All residing No.9, Pillaiyar Koil 3^rd Street,

Ekkattuthangal, Chennai -600 032. ... Petitioners/Judgment Debtors.

/versus/

M.S.Balaji,

No.3362-A.A.F.Block,

11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to

set aside the order dated 25.09.2025 in E.P.No.3975 of 2022 in O.S.No.3426 of

2009 on the file of the Hon’ble IX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.P.K.Shiva Nagesh

Page No.1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 05:56:15 pm )

C.R.P.(NPD).No.5629 of 2025

ORDER

The legal representatives of the defendants, being the judgment debtors in

E.P.No.3975 of 2022, are the revision petitioners.

2. Heard Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners

and Mr.P.K.Shiva Nagesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree

holder.

3. Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners,

would state that they are the L.R’s of one S.K.Krishnan, who was the defendant

in a suit filed for recovery of money in O.S.No.3426 of 2009, before the

Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Mr.B.Dinesh Kumar would state that

though the defendant, S.K.Krishnan submitted to a decree and a joint memo of

compromise was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on

18.06.2009 and a decree came to be passed in terms of the said joint memo of

compromise on 09.07.2009, it is the categorical submission and contention of

Mr.Dinesh Kumar that the decree does not even specify any amount which was

due and payable by the defendant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel,

the execution petition could not have been straight away laid for sale of the

property belonging to the deceased judgment debtor, which property now

belongs to the revision petitioners, by way of succession. The learned counsel

Page No.2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 05:56:15 pm )

C.R.P.(NPD).No.5629 of 2025

would also take me through the joint memo of compromise as well as the

execution petition filed by the respondent. To fortify his submissions that even

in the execution petition, the decree holder has not mentioned any specific

amount for which the decree has been passed, he would state that the valuable

property of the petitioners cannot be sold in execution of such a decree which

does not even specify the amount due and payable to the respondent/decree

holder. He would therefore pray for the order passed by the executing Court in

E.P.No.3975 of 2022 being set aside.

4. Per contra, Mr.P.K.Shiva Nagesh, learned counsel for the respondent

decree-holder would state that only at the insistence of the defendant and the

respondent/decree-holder agreed to enter into a compromise memo. Having

entered into a compromise memo and submitted to a decree, Mr.Shiva Nagesh

would contend that the L.Rs who are only legal representatives of the deceased

defendant cannot have any audience before this Court and in view of the

specific terms agreed to by the deceased defendant under the joint memo of

compromise, Mr.Shiva Nagesh would contend that the respondent decree-holder

is entitled to bring the property for sale and recover the monies due and payable

to him. In this regard, he would also point out that in furtherance of the powers

given to the respondent/decree-holder under the joint memo of compromise, he

has also entered into an agreement of sale with a third party, for sale of the

Page No.3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 05:56:15 pm )

C.R.P.(NPD).No.5629 of 2025

property originally belonging to the defendant and now to the judgment-debtor

and it would be a mockery o